G-20 Leaders Remain Split on Syria
World leaders meeting at the G-20 summit in St Petersburg, Russia, remain divided over military action in Syria.
At the summit, US President Barack Obama is said to be trying to build an international coalition in support of military intervention in Syria.
As expected, the differences of opinion have emerged when world leaders - including Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin - discussed Syria over dinner Thursday evening.
Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta has written in a tweet that "the G-20 has just now finished the dinner session, at which the divisions about Syria were confirmed".
Putin's press spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, has said after the dinner that the G-20 was split down the middle, with some countries seeking hasty action and others wanting the US to go through the UN Security Council.
The BBC cites British sources informing the leaders of France, Turkey, Canada and the UK gave strong backing to President Obama's call for military action. But the BBC correspondents in St Petersburg have reported that the opponents of US military intervention appear to far outnumber supporters within the G-20.
The regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regime has been accused of using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians on several occasions during the 30-month conflict with the worst attack happening in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21.
Some 100 000 people have died in the two-and-a-half-year-old conflict, according to the UN.
- » Crowds, Dignitaries Gather for Mandela Memorial Service
- » Scores Injured in Crackdown on Kiev Pro-EU Rally
- » Police Start Dismantling Protest Camps in Kiev
- » Ukrainian Opposition Party HQ Stormed by Police - Report
- » EU’s Barroso Declares Solidarity with Ukrainians
- » Ukrainian EuroMaydan Activists Surrounded by 'Berkut'
Peter, the permanent Western scepticism towards Russia seemingly affects Your post ;-)...Look, " a suggestion that just may work if they [Russians] can control their ally"---if You mean the last John Kerry' offer and the positive Assad' reaction on it (i.e. Syria readiness to pass its chemical weapon under the International control), then
I'd reply: "If THEY [USA] CAN CONTROL their allies-"rebels" and prevent those allies' expected provocations: the strike on Izrael. And then: the International, not Russian, control, Peter ;-)...
As for "Russia could have stopped arms supply to Syria without conditions"---think You're right, but-again-why Western Powers declined the (mentioned by me) Russian offer to stop ALL ARM supplies to Syria?
Sa Sha, Russia could have stopped arms supply to Syria without conditions I'm sure they were aware that the regime had enough (certainly far more than the "rebels" who were armed with little more than guns) to win any conflict.
But hey, we have now moved on and Russia has come up trumps with a suggestion that just may work if they can control their ally.
Peter, I'm attentive to Your posts, I hear You and - in reply to Your "they (Russia & Iran) must take some responsibility for the bloodshed"- I'd like to repeat: "Peter, when Russia officially offered to stop ALL ARM supplies to the both sides of the conflict (Assad and "rebels"), it was just Western Powers which declined that offer..."
As for the "international comfort" ;-)...i.e. what the West really creates for the "rebels", Russia's and many other states' efforts are aimed at reaching not military, but political solution to that crisis. Still......War is beating Peace this time, and the expected US leaders' fresh military idiocy will affect not only Syria.
Sa sha, you are not listening to what I say either. I am not advocating any intervention by the west but simply stating that, as Russia & Iran actually are actively supporting the Assad regime both with military supplies and international comfort that they (Russia & Iran) must take some responsibility for the bloodshed.
Peter, You don't hear me, I'm afraid. What I say is:
(1) For such Int-l Issues as Syria there is the only Arbitre: UN (and those who spit on UN because of the expected Russia/China veto, they violate the International Law and-starting attack on the sovereign state-they become the international war criminals. And-btw-VETO is the lawful UN instrument, which was used by the same USA when they alone blocked UNSC resolutions). To use UN when it "expedient" and to spit on it when UN procedure/resolutions are not OK for You, it is the road to hell, Peter.
(2) As for "it will be another who does exactly the same...China, Russia", You are absolutely right, such a threat exists, sure, and something is to be done, but-again-to be done by the "collective brain", by the UN.
(3)"responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria", Peter, lays on both Assad and anti-Assad forces and the latters exterminate civilians with the frightening brutality, though world media prefer to conceal it....As for Russian arm
supplies to Assad: they DO NOT violate the international laws, while USA, EU' states, Turkey,Saudia, Qatar... supplies to "rebels" do. And, Peter, when Russia officially offered to stop ALL ARM supplies to the both sides of
the conflict (Assad and "rebels"), it was just Western Powers which declined that offer...nice picture, right?
(4)"[Russia] negatively veto any international proposals to help the regimes opposition"---joking, Peter?
(5) "Russia and Iran actively support the regime's slaughter"---slogan, Peter, slogan of "Soviet propaganda", which is now the Western one. Hundreds of Kurds, thouzands of civilians in Aleppo, Homs, Damascus, cannibalism, destroyed Christian churches, tortured and murdered clergymen, all this is the PROVEN "merits" just of the "rebels".....
In view of the above, Peter, Will the West except "some responsibility"?...........I think West will do its Best.
“Peter, in a few years from now it will be another who does exactly the same. With power and might come influence,look back over history and see if you can find one example of an empire that has not used its power to its own ends. Watch China, and, maybe,Russia and see what pans out over the next 50 years or so.”
In all of China’s thousands of years history they have never invaded another country, so why would they want to now or in the future?
The Soviet’s never wanted world domination like the US have now and their motives as a liberating army were as follows.. To protect and extend their borders, also get other countries they liberated to help re-build their devastated homeland….
They rejected the Marshall Plan….
Sa Sha...................The Russian veto has to take some responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria, it is they who, along with Iran, supply the regime. So they negatively veto any international proposals to help the regimes opposition and positively supply the regime any clear thinker would call that support but no, they claim it is not intervention???? Russia and Iran actively support the regime's slaughter while actively resisting and other country to back the opposition.
Will Russia except "some responsibility"...........I think not.