Mind you - this is not real economic sanctions, merely an arms embargo and a travel and money ban for Mugabe and his band of thugs (who his own country hates). But no....China and Russia and Thabo Wabo choose this to be the place to make their stand against western bullies - like Morgan Tsvangarai. Lame. If China wants to be a world leader it will have to behave more responsibly. Russia is hopeless - when their oil runs out they'll be about as relevant as an oil-less House of Saud. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/o..._r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print July 16, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist So Popular and So Spineless By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Much ink has been spilled lately decrying the decline in American popularity around the world under President Bush. Polls tell us how China is now more popular in Asia than America and how few Europeans say they identify with the United States. I am sure there is truth to these polls. We should have done better in Iraq. An America that presides over Abu Ghraib, torture and Guantánamo Bay deserves a thumbs-down. But America is not and never has been just about those things, which is why I also find some of these poll results self-indulgent, knee-jerk and borderline silly. Friday’s vote at the U.N. on Zimbabwe reminded me why. Maybe Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans and Africans don’t like a world of too much American power — “Mr. Big” got a little too big for them. But how would they like a world of too little American power? With America’s overextended military and overextended banks, that is the world into which we may be heading. Welcome to a world of too much Russian and Chinese power. I am neither a Russia-basher nor a China-basher. But there was something truly filthy about Russia’s and China’s vetoes of the American-led U.N. Security Council effort to impose targeted sanctions on Robert Mugabe’s ruling clique in Zimbabwe. The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight. In the first round of Zimbabwe’s elections, on March 29, the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, won nearly 48 percent of the vote compared with 42 percent for Mugabe. This prompted Mugabe and his henchmen to begin a campaign of killing and intimidation against Tsvangirai supporters that eventually forced the opposition to pull out of the second-round runoff vote just to stay alive. Even before the runoff, Mugabe declared that he would disregard the results if his ZANU-PF party lost. Or as he put it: “We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X” on some paper ballot. And so, of course, Mugabe “won” in one of the most blatantly stolen elections ever — in a country already mired in misrule, unemployment, hunger and inflation. Some 25 percent of Zimbabwe’s people have now taken refuge in neighboring states. (I have close friends from Zimbabwe, and one of my daughters worked there in an H.I.V.-AIDS community center in January.) The Associated Press reported in May from Zimbabwe “that annual inflation rose this month to 1,063,572 percent, based on prices of a basket of basic foodstuffs.” Zimbabwe’s currency has become so devalued, the A.P. explained, that “a loaf of bread now costs what 12 new cars did a decade ago.” No matter. Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s U.N. ambassador, argued that the targeted sanctions that the U.S. and others wanted to impose on Mugabe’s clique exceeded the Security Council’s mandate. “We believe such practices to be illegitimate and dangerous,” he said, describing the resolution as one more obvious “attempt to take the Council beyond its charter prerogatives.” Veto! Mugabe’s campaign of murder and intimidation didn’t strike Churkin as “illegitimate and dangerous” — only the U.N. resolution to bring a halt to it was “illegitimate and dangerous.” Shameful. Meanwhile, China is hosting the Olympics, a celebration of the human spirit, while defending Mugabe’s right to crush his own people’s spirit. But when it comes to pure, rancid moral corruption, no one can top South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, and his stooge at the U.N., Dumisani Kumalo. They have done everything they can to prevent any meaningful U.N. pressure on the Mugabe dictatorship. As The Times reported, America’s U.N. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, “accused South Africa of protecting the ‘horrible regime in Zimbabwe,’ ” calling this particularly disturbing given that it was precisely international economic sanctions that brought down South Africa’s apartheid government, which had long oppressed that country’s blacks. So let us now coin the Mbeki Rule: When whites persecute blacks, no amount of U.N. sanctions is too much. And when blacks persecute blacks, any amount of U.N. sanctions is too much. Which brings me back to America. Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these “popular” countries — called Russia or China or South Africa — that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his own people. So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.
Sammy, You posted an op-ed from the Western-biased New York Times. You know it's meaningless. TIMES must stand for Truly Ignorant Media Elite Something You should only post good journalism like reports from China.
To be fair, America's not exactly squeaky clean with the vetoes either, especially compared with well, China. List of American vetoes censuring disapproval of Isreal. ...Not saying this justifies what China has done, since I do think that two wrongs don't make a right (although something could be said of hypocrisy if America attacks China for using the veto the US has cherished and used for so long). But regardless, if you think a veto on a Security Council draft is a sign of "lacking responsibility", well welcome to the ineffective and muscle-flexing, bull****ting world of the UN. I hope you enjoy your stay.
Northside storm's post got me curious. Some I went and found this table. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm which doesn't include this particular instance. From 1996 - 2007, US vetoed 12 times, China 3, and Russia 2. France/English 0. Extending back to 1985, we get US 36, England 8, Russia 4, China 3, and France 3. So I think it's a correct assumption that US should not be complaining about any other country abusing veto power of being on the UN Security Council.
The US has no legitimate room to complain about others using their veto power at the UNSC - especially considering how many times the US has used their veto to block resolutions aimed at the criminal actions and atrocities of Israel. The structure of the UNSC is what needs to change, but I don't see any nation giving up it's veto power. There have been talks about restructuring the UNSC though.
Israel has its problems...but I wouldn't compare it to Zimbabwe. Sam: Russia has more than just oil. It has an abundance of nearly everything: timber, water, gold, titanium, diamonds. People are still well-educated and are pretty competitive in IT, and its economy is still growing. Russia has more of a future in an oil-less world under Czar Putin than Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud, IMHO. It will just be for the select few who own shares in lukoil and alrosa. South African leaders, especially Mbeki are going to continue to throw softballs at Mugabe. He's still an old, old friend to the "liberators" of Southern Africa, esp. the ANC. I was surprised Mandela came out of his hiding place to denounce Mugabe, and he deserves a good deal of respect for doing so. Most won't have the courage. As bad a leader as Mugabe has become he has decades of legacy as a great leader and liberator among the powers that be. But I still laugh every time he blames the UK for every problem in southern Africa. I suspect when he goes he'll be replaced by someone power hungry within his own party, probably someone loyal to the Mujuru faction (whch may likely be worse). <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V7MljJu-Vk4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V7MljJu-Vk4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I think it's an incorrect assumption to assume that this is in any way legitimizes Russia and China's cheerleading of the destruction of Zimbabwe.
Man, what is with your obsession with bashing China? I think the veto reflects poorly on China; then again, it's not like certain countries haven't already liberally used the veto to censure whatever they disapprove of; the Security Council is pretty much all political muscle-flexing anyways.
Because China deserves to be bashed here, as do Russia and S.A. China enjoys proclaiming its relevance in the world these days, witness the orgiastic pomp and circumstance of the never-ending Olympic torch relay, not since the days of Goebbels has it been so glorious. With relevance comes scrutiny. So what - I didn't veto a censure or any U.N. Resolution back in the 1970's, neither did anybody in Zimbabwe. Nor did it affect China or Russia. This concern is not even remotely relevant. Do you know the details of this resolution? Appointment of a mediator, travel restrictions, arms embargo? This is muscle-flexing? It's almost a symbolic gestrue - one that it's pretty much unreasonable to oppose.
SamFisher wrote "Russia is hopeless - when their oil runs out they'll be about as relevant as an oil-less House of Saud." I disagree - hot Russian tail will always be relevant
See, I mention China, since you have a pattern of attacking China whenever possible. Which is cool, freedom of expression and all that jazz, but it does kinda give off that zealot-like vibe... And regardless, what the U.S vetoed is incredibly relevent to this topic, since it represents almost the same thing. If you check the bills the U.S has vetoed ,most are of the symbolic "peace in the Middle East" type of drafts. If you're going to attack China for exercising this right, then you might as well attack the entire system, since the Security Council is a load of crap anyways (as demonstrated effectivly by the US and the Negroponte Doctrine, which is a load of crap; to condemn Isreal you have to effectivly condemn everyone opposed to Isreal first, which is just LOL)
I like china, but it is going down the wrong path - in order to save it I must give it the gift of truth. . I'm sorry I didn't know that my name was John Negroponte. What part or parts of the resolution do you oppose, if any?
Dude, wth, stop skipping around it. The Security Council is a load of bull. This is irrelevant because the Security Council is a load of bull anyways. Alright? This has nothing to do with whoever ordered the vetoes or who did this or who did that, basically, the SC exists to give out political handchecks and crappy, nonsenseical politcal handwringing, so if you fault China and Russia and whatever, you should look at the system first.
It is in China's interest to have national socialist totalitarian governments in place in Africa. In the near future, huge scale corporate farming of the arable lands of East Africa will be required to feed their populace. You can't do that with democratic governments that recognize the property rights of individuals.
What's interesting to me is how many, IMO, don't remember that we went from the founding of the UN and the inclusion of the veto in its charter in 1945, all the way to 1970 before casting a single veto (you can thank Nixon and Kissinger for that one). The first lone veto was cast in 1972, a vote condeming Israel for bombing Lebanon and Syria from the air (which killed hundreds) as part of a response to the infamous Olympic massacre of its athletes. Since then, the vast majority of vetoes concern either Israel or Cuba. The USSR/Russia holds the record for vetoes. China has only cast 5 or 6, although for decades the ROC held the seat. If China begins using its veto more often, that will change the dynamic a bit in the Security Council. http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html Impeach Bush/Cheney.
I don't oppose the resolution. I said this refects poorly on China, but it's not as melodramatic as you or your op-ed author make it out to be. YOu're missing the point I've enumerated a couple of times already.
