By Darrell Rankin, People’s Voice, March 1, 2012

Excerpt from:  (page 4)

The U.N. General Assembly and Syria

Imperialism’s lies are having some effect on world opinion, or the February 16 non-binding vote in the U.N. General Assembly would not have been so weighted against the Syrian people. The vote was 137 in favour, 12 opposed, 17 abstentions and 27 not voting. The Palestinian territories could not vote.

Why would a large majority of states vote in support of Saudi Arabia’s resolution urging, among other demands, that the Syrian government withdraw its military from urban areas? This demand alone shows how unbalanced the resolution was in favour of one side of the civil conflict, because the armed insurgent groups remaining in urban areas could then form a provisional government and invite foreign military forces into the country.

There have been few similar occasions when imperialism has been able to lead its former colonies to vote for solutions that undermine their sovereignty, like when most voted in 1994 to form and join the World Trade Organization, soon after the setbacks to socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Capitalism’s global problems and imperialism’s efforts to erase national sovereignty through economic diktat and war have since produced a growing and uneven reappraisal. Adding more wars will make the situation worse.

The majority support of world governments for the unbalanced resolution on Syria (71%) helps hide the fact that 33.4% of the world’s people live in the 56 countries that did not support the resolution. About 24.2% of the world’s people live in the 12 countries that opposed the resolution (6% of 193 member states of the United Nations).

It is important to understand why several important countries spoke against a war of forced regime change in Syria, though they supported the resolution – either through conscious betrayal or because of promises and threats like those used to create the U.S.-led “coalition of the willing” in 2003 that occupied Iraq.

India: “Explaining India’s vote on the UNGA resolution, India’s Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri underlined that while India condemned violence, it opposed any use of force by a third country and advocated a Syrian-led political reconciliation.” (Hindustan Times, February 17, 2012)

Pakistan: “The representative of Pakistan said he supported the Arab League position and had voted in favour of the resolution, but condemned the use of violence on all sides. An immediate end to violence and killing, as well as a peaceful resolution were aims upon which all Member States agreed. In that light, Pakistan had been stressing the need for consensus… noting that there could have been better efforts… to fully assure delegations that there was no intention to carry out a hostile intervention. Reiterating his call for the Syrian people to be respected, he said they must be allowed to resolve their crisis, and he reaffirmed the absolute importance of respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all States” (U.N. Public Information Department, Feb. 16, 2012.)

Ukraine: “Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had issued a statement last week in which it had expressed grave concern at the escalating violence in Syria, “which threatens to grow into a full-scale civil war, with unpredictable consequences in the entire Middle East”. Ukraine urged all parties in Syria to cease the violence and begin a dialogue, with the aim of finding a mutually acceptable and effective way to resolve their differences.” (Same source.)

So why is the expressed view of India, Pakistan and Ukraine at complete odds with the actual, unbalanced and pro-war intention of Saudi Arabia’s resolution? The comments of these diplomats are a deception for the people of their countries who comprise 21.2% of the world’s total; they are proclaiming “peace” but voting for war.

World opinion does not support a war of regime change and occupation against Syria. Some governments are being forced to cover their tracks.

Emboldened by the UN vote, imperialism is moving quickly to stoke violent regime change and launch new, destabilizing adventures. The danger has only increased.

The Iranian people have every reason to fear they will be imperialism’s next target. It is urgent to unite Labour and all other popular movements to oppose the growing war against Syria.