This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/world/middleeast/Syria-vote-in-Security-Council.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Russia and China Block Security Council Move to Prosecute Syria War Crimes China and Russia Block Referral of Syria to Court
(about 5 hours later)
Russia and China on Thursday vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have empowered the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute war crimes in Syria, defying widespread support for such a move by human rights advocates and many United Nations members, including the United States. UNITED NATIONS — Beheadings, torture, aerial bombardments of schools and hospitals: The war in Syria, raging for more than three years with no sign of relief, represents the very excesses of war that the International Criminal Court was designed to take on.
It was the fourth time that Russia and China used their veto power as permanent Security Council members to block any coercive action by the international body in the Syrian conflict, which began more than three years ago and has claimed at least 150,000 lives. Nevertheless, the court will not take on war crimes in Syria, not anytime soon anyway. China and Russia voted Thursday against a Security Council resolution that would have empowered the world tribunal to go after perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Syria.
The vote on the resolution, sponsored by France, was broadcast live on the United Nations website. The measure received 13 yes votes in the 15-member council. Before the vote, the United Nations deputy secretary general, Jan Eliasson, issued a poignant rebuke. “If members of the Council continue to be unable to agree on a measure that could provide some accountability for the ongoing crimes,” he said, “the credibility of this body and the entire organization will continue to suffer.”
More than 50 members of the General Assembly had urged the Council to approve the measure, and many rights advocates had pressed for a favorable vote, even though they had expected a veto at least by Russia, the Syrian government’s most important backer. Now those who demand accountability for war criminals in Syria will have to prepare other options, potentially including ones outside of the International Criminal Court. One option could be setting up a special tribunal, which American officials have privately suggested in the past. Another could involve plucking war-crime suspects from Syria when they travel abroad — to go shopping or attend a child’s college graduation, for instance — to be tried under universal jurisdiction laws. A third could involve a General Assembly resolution under a provision called Uniting for Peace, which can be invoked when the Security Council is believed to have failed to do its job in maintaining peace and security.
Russia’s ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, had announced on Wednesday that Russia would veto the resolution, arguing that it was a “publicity stunt” that would be counterproductive and subvert any diplomatic efforts to settle the conflict. Syria’s government had also publicly opposed the resolution, calling it a one-sided attempt by France and its allies to intervene in Syria’s internal affairs. “In the face of mounting crimes, and 150,000 dead, the international community must think creatively about how to ensure accountability in Syria — with or without the Council,” Beth Van Schaack, a law professor at Santa Clara University and a former special adviser to the State Department, wrote Thursday on a legal blog called Just Security.
China’s position before the vote had not been entirely clear. While China had not been expected to approve the resolution, it could have abstained, which would have signaled less than emphatic solidarity with Russia on the issue. But Wang Min, the deputy permanent representative who represented China on Thursday at the Council, was frank about his country’s objections to the resolution, describing it as an unwarranted action that would violate Syria’s judicial sovereignty and ruin any prospects for a third round of peace talks in Geneva. None of these options would be easy, legal scholars and diplomats have said. Each would face considerable diplomatic and legal hurdles. Supporters of the world court say that this is precisely the kind of war that it was set up for, and that it would be a waste of time and money to create something else.
“To forcibly refer the situation of Syria to the I.C.C. is neither conducive to building trust among all parties in Syria or to early resumption of negotiations in Geneva,” he said. Thursday’s vote underscored the paradox at the heart of how cases can be referred to the court. Syria has not signed the international treaty that created the court, which is why the court cannot start an inquiry, no matter how egregious the crimes. The court can act only if the Council demands it. Political deadlock among the Council’s five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — has made that impossible.
Syria is not a signatory to the treaty that created the International Criminal Court more than a decade ago, with the goal of holding accountable those who commit war crimes and other atrocities. Under the treaty, however, the Security Council has the power to authorize the court to investigate and prosecute cases in countries that are not signatories. China’s deputy permanent representative, Wang Min, told the Council on Thursday that referring Syria to the court for war crimes is “neither conducive to building trust” nor helpful in getting the warring parties back to political negotiations.
Before the vote, Jan Eliasson, the deputy secretary general, urged the Council to take action. “The Security Council has an inescapable responsibility in this regard to ensure justice for victims of unspeakable crimes,” he said. The French ambassador to the United Nations, Gérard Araud, described China’s and Russia’s decisions to vote against the resolution as akin to “vetoing justice.”
Gérard Araud, the ambassador from France, emphasized that the resolution would apply to crimes committed by all sides in the conflict, which have been widely documented. He said a veto of the measure was equivalent to “vetoing justice.” Speaking later to reporters outside the Council chambers, Mr. Araud said he could not understand the logic of the veto. “It’s very sad,” he said. “More people are going to die, more people are going to suffer.” Mr. Araud told reporters afterward, “There is a moment when you realize you are powerless in front of barbarians and their supporters.”
Having expected at least the Russia veto, the United States ambassador, Samantha Power, had her reaction prepared, telling fellow Council members: “Sadly, because of the decision of the Russian Federation to back the Syrian regime no matter what it does, the Syrian people will not see justice today. They will see crime, but not punishment.”  France drafted the measure and garnered the support of 62 other countries.
Rights advocates also condemned the outcome. “Moscow and Beijing can veto a resolution but they can’t suppress the desire for justice by the Syrian people and the dozens of governments that stood for their rights,” Richard Dicker, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. With violence raging unabated among the antagonists, Mr. Dicker said, “Russia and China’s vote for continued impunity is a disgrace.” Samantha Power, the United States ambassador, said the Council had not previously raised the prospect of a war crimes referral because it feared it would be vetoed. “But the victims of the Assad regime’s industrial killing machine and the victims of terrorist attacks deserve more than to have more dead counted,” she said. “They deserve to have each of us, the members of this Security Council, counted and held to account.”
The United States, which has not signed the treaty that created the Hague-based court, supported the draft resolution only after it secured important exemptions: namely protecting its soldiers from prosecution by the tribunal, should they ever get involved in Syria with Security Council authorization, and ensuring that its ally Israel — which holds the Golan Heights, territory that Syria also claims — is not made vulnerable to a court investigation. Qusai Zakarya, a Syrian opposition activist whom Ms. Power invited to the Council session, said the failed effort should propel action outside the Council.
“This will go to history,” he said shortly after leaving the viewing gallery above the Council chambers. “It will also show how the Security Council is helpless to help the Syrian people.”