Russia has vetoed a US-drafted UN resolution that would have condemned last weekend’s suspected gas attack near Damascus and established a new body to determine responsibility for Syrian chemical weapons attacks.
The vote on Tuesday afternoon in the 15-member Security Council was 12 in favour, Bolivia joining Russia in voting no, and China abstaining.
US Ambassador Nikki Haley said the US “went the extra mile” to get Russian support for the resolution to ensure that a new investigative body would be impartial, independent and professional – things she said would not be guaranteed by a rival Russian resolution.
Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused the United States of wanting the resolution to fail “to justify the use of force against Syria”.
At a certain point you’re either for an independent and impartial investigation, or you’re not. Today for the 6th time Russia failed the Syrian people and vetoed a mechanism that would have held those who use chemical weapons against them accountable.
— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) April 10, 2018
He said the resolution was trying to recreate the old expert body, whose extension Moscow blocked in November. He called that body “a puppet in the hands of anti-Damascus forces”.
A Russian resolution that would have created a new expert body to determine responsibility for the chemical weapons attacks was also rejected.
The resolution needed at least nine yes votes in the 15-member council for approval but only six countries voted in favour. Seven council members, including the US, Britain and France, voted against the proposal and two abstained.
Ms Haley said the draft resolution was not impartial or independent since it would allow Russia to veto investigators and staff for the new body — and to block its findings.
She accused Russia of repeatedly shielding President Bashar Assad instead of working for Security Council unity.
Later, the council rejected a Russian resolution that would have welcomed an investigation by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) into the suspected poison gas attack.
In the late vote, five countries voted in favour, four voted against and six abstained.
British ambassador Karen Pierce said the UK opposed the resolution because an OPCW investigative team is already headed to Syria and the Russian text did not include a new body to determine accountability for chemical weapons attacks.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here