Russia, China veto U.N. resolution on Syria & Text of proposed UN Security Council resolution on Syria vetoed by Russia, China 4FEB12

russia and the prc cast their lot with the murderers of Damascus, is anyone really surprised? Neither country is democratic, the prc has a long history of using the same tactics against their own people and russia, despite the demands of a majority of it's citizens, is sliding back to authoritarian rule under putin. Birds of feather, as the old saying goes. This from the Washington Post followed by the text of the proposed resolution...

By Colum Lynch and Alice Fordham

UNITED NATIONS — Russia and China on Saturday vetoed a U.N. resolution condemning Syria’s violent repression of anti-government demonstrators, effectively quashing efforts to isolate President Bashar al-Assad’s government as it intensifies a nearly year-long crackdown.
The veto dealt a blow to attempts by the United States and its European partners to rally behind an Arab League plan that would require Assad to yield power and make way for a democratically elected unity government. The vote followed weeks of negotiations in which diplomats had significantly watered down the resolution in a bid to win broad support.
“The United States is disgusted” by the Russian and Chinese vetoes, Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote. “A couple of members of this council remain steadfast in their willingness to sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant.”
Russia’s U.N. envoy, Vitaly I. Churkin, countered that the United States and its partners had undermined the prospects for a deal, saying they had promoted a strategy aimed at “regime change” by backing the opposition’s pursuit of power and fueling “armed methods of struggle.”
The rift left the diplomatic process in disarray, with Arab League delegates vowing to press ahead with their plan for a political transition in Syria, while Russia announced that officials would travel Tuesday to Damascus, where they will meet with Assad and to try to push a competing plan to bring the Syrian government and the opposition together for direct talks.
But some Syria experts were worried that it was already too late for diplomatic solutions. “Things are slipping out of control on the ground so much that I’m not sure that [the resolution] could have stopped the killing,” said Andrew Tabler, a Middle East expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The U.N. deadlock came a day after Syrian authorities moved to crush resistance in the town of Homs, killing scores of civilians on the 30th anniversary of the massacre in Hama. Estimates of those killed late Friday varied widely, but the assault seemed to be the strongest attempt yet by the government to put down the protests. Although casualties have been heavy for months, Syrian forces have largely abstained from the use of heavier weaponry. Activists now worry that the attack heralds a new and more aggressive strategy on the part of Assad’s government.
On Saturday, crowds gathered in Homs for the first funerals of the dead, with tens of thousands shown in video footage massing around coffins and shrouds decked with flowers. An opposition spokesman said that after the funerals, people were waiting eagerly to hear the results of the U.N. vote.
“We were hoping they would change their opinion,” said the spokesman, who uses the nom de guerre Abu Rami. “Unfortunately they used their veto. The people here are not so much disappointed. We will rely on Allah, the holy God, and after Allah, we will rely on the Free Syrian Army.”
The 13 to 2 Security Council vote capped weeks of tumultuous negotiations that pitted the United States, the European Union and the Arab League against Russia, Syria’s most powerful remaining protector in the 15-member council.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rice, along with their European and Arab counterparts, pressed repeatedly to avoid the Russia veto, agreeing to abandon the sharpest provisions a draft resolution, including calls on states to prevent the supply of weapons to Syria, and to reinforce a set of Arab League sanctions on Damascus. They also added language that explicitly ruled out the use of the resolution as a pretext for future military action.
In Washington, President Obama issued a statement shortly before the vote casting Syria’s latest military operations as the last gasp of a crumbling regime and urging Assad to step down.
Envoys from Russia and China had signaled this past week that they would recommend their capitals support the U.N. resolution, according to senior council diplomats. But Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, ultimately rejected the compromise draft, proposing a set of last-minute amendments Saturday that were rejected by Washington and other sponsors of the resolution.
“We are not friends or allies of President Assad,” Lavrov insisted ahead of the vote. “We try to stick to our responsibilities as a permanent members of the Security Council, and the Security Council by definition does not engage in domestic affairs of member states.”
Senior administration officials pointed to the wide margin of support for the resolution, with developing countries such as Pakistan, India, South Africa and Azerbaijan all siding against the Assad government. “There was a hopeful aspect” to the vote, Rice said. “More and more countries are united in saying the violence must stop, change must come.”
White House officials acknowledged that the vote was a blow to diplomatic efforts to end the Syrian crisis. The focus now appears to shift to the Arab League, where a vote on sanctions by Arab nations could come as early as next week.
But critics of the administration’s incremental diplomacy in Syria said the administration was partly to blame for Saturday’s outcome.
“This has been a slow-motion train wreck,” said David Schenker, an adviser to the Pentagon on the Middle East during the George W. Bush administration. “We aimed low, and we fell short.”
Rather than attempting to sell the Russians on a toothless resolution, Schenker said, the White House should be mobilizing a “coalition of the willing” to help Syria’s beleaguered rebels with weapons and training. “If we continue to defer both to the Arab League and the U.N., the Syrian people are doomed.”
Saturday’s vote carried political risks for Moscow and Beijing, which have defied the wishes not only of Washington and its European powers, but confronted a coalition of influential and wealthy states likely to be driven even more deeply into the Western camp.
“There is nothing in this text that should have triggered a veto. We removed every possible excuse,” said Britain’s U.N. envoy, Mark Lyall Grant. “The reality is that Russia and China have today taken a choice: to turn their backs on the Arab world and to support tyranny rather than the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.”
In Syria, demonstrators were bracing for another possible onslaught.
Col. Malik Turki, a commander with the armed group known as Free Syrian Army, said when reached by telephone in Turkey that he had received dozens of calls from Syrians asking him to supply them with weapons after the events of Friday night. He accused the authorities of pushing the country toward civil war and the international community of failing to stop government assaults.
“The Syrian citizens will do anything to get what is needed for their defense as the international community is giving this regime one chance after the other,” he said.


Fordham reported from Damascus. Staff writer Joby Warrick in Washington contributed to this report.

Text of proposed UN Security Council resolution on Syria vetoed by Russia, China

UNITED NATIONS — Text of the proposed U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria that was vetoed Saturday by Russia and China:
List of Co-Sponsors: Morocco, France, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Portugal, Colombia, Togo, Libya, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Turkey.
The Security Council,
Recalling its presidential statement of 3 August 2011,
Recalling General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/176 of 19 December 2011, as well as Human Rights Council resolutions S/16-1, S/17-1 and S/18-1,
Noting the League of Arab States’ request in its decision of 22 January 2012,
Expressing grave concern at the deterioration of the situation in Syria, and profound concern at the death of thousands of people and calling for an immediate end to all violence,
Welcoming the League of Arab States’ Action Plan of 2 November 2011 and its subsequent decisions, including its decision of 22 January 2012, which aims to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis,
Noting the deployment of the League of Arab States’ observer mission, commending its efforts, regretting that, due to the escalation in violence, the observer mission was not in a position to monitor the full implementation of the League of Arab States’ Action Plan of 2 November 2011, and noting the subsequent decision of the League of Arab states to suspend the mission,
Underscoring the importance of ensuring the voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes in safety and with dignity,
Mindful that stability in Syria is key to peace and stability in the region,
Noting the announced commitments by the Syrian authorities to reform, and regretting the lack of progress in implementation,
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria, emphasizing its intention to resolve the current political crisis in Syria peacefully, and noting that nothing in this resolution authorizes measures under Article 42 of the Charter,
Welcoming the engagement of the Secretary-General and all diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing the situation, and noting in this regard the offer of the Russian Federation to host a meeting in Moscow, in consultation with the League of Arab States,
1. Condemns the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities, such as the use of force against civilians, arbitrary executions, killing and persecution of protestors and members of the media, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, interference with access to medical treatment, torture, sexual violence, and ill-treatment, including against children;
2. Demands that the Syrian government immediately put an end to all human rights violations and attacks against those exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, protect its population, fully comply with its obligations under applicable international law and fully implement the Human Rights Council resolutions S-16/1, S-17/1, S-18/1 and the General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/176;
3. Condemns all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, and in this regard demands that all parties in Syria, including armed groups, immediately stop all violence or reprisals, including attacks against State institutions, in accordance with the League of Arab States’ initiative;
4. Recalls that all those responsible for human rights violations, including acts of violence, must be held accountable;
5. Demands that the Syrian government, in accordance with the Plan of Action of the League of Arab States of 2 November 2011 and its decision of 22 January 2012, without delay:
(a) cease all violence and protect its population;
(b) release all persons detained arbitrarily due to the recent incidents;
(c) withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barracks;
(d) guarantee the freedom of peaceful demonstrations;
(e) allow full and unhindered access and movement for all relevant League of Arab States’ institutions and Arab and international media in all parts of Syria to determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor the incidents taking place; and
(f) allow full and unhindered access to the League of Arab States’ observer mission;
6. Calls for an inclusive Syrian-led political process conducted in an environment free from violence, fear, intimidation and extremism, and aimed at effectively addressing the legitimate aspirations and concerns of Syria’s people, without prejudging the outcome;
7. Fully supports in this regard the League of Arab States’ 22 January 2012 decision to facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs, including through commencing a serious political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition under the League of Arab States’ auspices, in accordance with the timetable set out by the League of Arab States;
8. Encourages the League of Arab States to continue its efforts in cooperation with all Syrian stakeholders;
9. Calls upon the Syrian authorities, in the event of a resumption of the observer mission, to cooperate fully with the League of Arab States’ observer mission, in accordance with the League of Arabs States’ Protocol of 19 December 2011, including through granting full and unhindered access and freedom of movement to the observers, facilitating the entry of technical equipment necessary for the mission, guaranteeing the mission’s right to interview, freely or in private, any individual and guaranteeing also not to punish, harass, or retaliate against, any person who has cooperated with the mission;
10. Stresses the need for all to provide all necessary assistance to the mission in accordance with the League of Arab States’ Protocol of 19 December 2011 and its decision of 22 January 2012;
11. Demands that the Syrian authorities cooperate fully with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the Commission of Inquiry dispatched by the Human Rights Council, including by granting it full and unimpeded access to the country;
12. Calls upon the Syrian authorities to allow safe and unhindered access for humanitarian assistance in order to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to persons in need of assistance;
13. Welcomes the Secretary-General’s efforts to provide support to the League of Arab States, including its observer mission, in promoting a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis;
14. Requests the Secretary General to report on the implementation of this resolution, in consultation with the League of Arab States, within 21 days after its adoption and to report every 30 days thereafter;
15. Decides to review implementation of this resolution within 21 days and, in the event of non-compliance, to consider further measures;
16. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

A Good Fight & Five Things To Know About Obama's Deficit Plan 19SEP11

FINALLY the campaign rhetoric is matching White House policy, and the man we voted into office is making a stand for the 98% of Americans who are not rich. If he sees this through and protects the government programs as well as possible in these difficult financial times and raises taxes on the rich to address the deficit then he will probably have a good chance of being re-elected. Realizing this will only harden repiglican / tea-bagger resolve against any tax increases, because their agenda during Pres Obama's first term has been to make him a one term president. So the lines are drawn, and the economic fate of the nation hangs in the balance. Pres Obama, YOU BETTER NOT BLINK. And by the by, I am still waiting for someone from the right wing to offer a list of companies who have used their bush era tax breaks to create jobs here in America. If you have ever noticed john boehner, mitch mcconnell and eric cantor never offer the names of any companies or wealthy people who have done this to justify extending these tax breaks any longer. Can anyone offer any company names? Anyone??? This from HuffPost...
So the really big fight -- perhaps the defining battle of 2012 -- won't be over Medicare. It won't even be over Obama's jobs program.
It will be over whether the rich should pay more taxes.
The president has vowed to veto any plan to tame the debt that doesn't increase taxes on the rich. The Republicans have vowed to oppose any tax increases on the rich.
It's a good fight to have.
In a Rose Garden ceremony this morning, Obama proposed new taxes on the wealthy -- including a special new tax for millionaires, the closing of loopholes and deductions for people making more than $250,000 a year, and an end to the portion of the Bush tax cut going to higher incomes.
Republicans accuse the president of instigating "class warfare." But it's not warfare to demand the rich pay their fair share of taxes to bring down America's long-term debt.
After all, the richest 1 percent of Americans now takes home more than 20 percent of total income. That's the highest share going to the top 1 percent in almost 90 years.
And they now pay at the lowest tax rates in half a century -- half the rate they paid on ordinary income prior to 1981.
(Unfortunately, the President isn't proposing to raise the capital-gains tax -- which, now at 15 percent, creates a loophole large enough for the super-rich to drive their Ferrari's through. About 80 percent of the income of America's richest 400 comes in the form of capital gains. Here's where billionaire hedge-fund and private-equity fund managers make out like bandits. As I've noted, I also wish he aimed higher -- for more brackets and higher rates at the very top. But at least he's drawn a line in the sand. The veto message is clear.)
Anyone who says the American economy suffers when the rich pay more in taxes doesn't know history. We grew faster the first three decades after World War II than we have since.
Trickle-down economics has been a cruel joke.
On the other hand -- given projected budget deficits -- if the rich don't pay their fair share, the rest of us will have to bear more of a burden. And that burden inevitably will come in the form of either higher taxes or fewer public services.
If anyone's declared class warfare it's the people who inhabit the top rungs of big corporations and Wall Street (and who comprise a disproportionate number of America's super rich). They've declared it on average workers.
The ratio of corporate profits to wages is higher than it's been since before the Great Depression. And even as corporate salaries and perks keep rising, the median wage keeping dropping, and jobs continue to be shed.
You've got the chairman of Merck taking home $17.9 million last year. This year Merck announces plans to boot 13,000 workers. The CEO of Bank of America takes in $10 million, and the bank announces it's firing 30,000 workers.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but the way I see it we've got a huge budget deficit and a giant jobs problem. And under these circumstances it seems to me people at the top who have never had it so good should sacrifice a bit more, so the rest of us don't have to sacrifice quite as much.
According to the polls, most Americans agree.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Five Things To Know About Obama's Deficit Plan

by Mark Memmott

NPR White House correspondent Scott Horsley talks with David Greene

President Obama this morning outlines a deficit-reduction plan that his economists say would reduce anticipated federal budget deficits by about $4 trillion over the next decade.

Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images President Obama last week.

As NPR's Scott Horsley said earlier today on Morning Edition, the president and his aides will make the case that he's put together a "balanced" plan of cuts in expected spending and increases in tax revenues. "Balanced," says Scott, is a code word for a plan that includes tax increases — in this case, on the wealthy.
The president is due to officially unveil the plan at 10:30 a.m. ET.
As we wait for him to speak, here are five things to know about what he's going to propose:
  1 — Which Is It? $4 Trillion Or $3 Trillion? As they report about what the president's going to say, some news outlets are saying the president will have a plan for saving $4 trillion over the next decade, while others are saying it's a $3 trillion package.
Which is it?
Both (sort of).
Officially, the president's statement will be about what he's recommending to the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction — the bi-partisan "super committee" of senators and representatives. It's been charged with finding $1.2 trillion in additional budget savings (above the $1 trillion agreed to last month) over the next decade.
As Scott reported, most economists say that $1.2 trillion just isn't enough to make serious progress toward getting the government's accounts in order. So, the president is going to pitch a plan that he says includes and expands on the $1 trillion that's already been agreed to, and adds up to just more than $4 trillion.
2 — Increased Tax Revenues (Translation: Higher Taxes) Account For About Half: If you look at the $3 trillion in projected deficit reduction that the president says his plan would achieve over the next decade (above and beyond the $1 trillion already agreed to), then about $1.5 trillion is expected to come from higher taxes. The president proposes:

Repealing the so-called Bush tax cuts for couples making more than $250,000 a year.
A "Buffett rule" that would, as Bloomberg News writes, "require taxpayers with [annual] incomes of $1 million or more pay at least the same percentage in taxes as middle-income Americans." It gets its name from billionaire investment whiz Warren Buffett, who has said he and other super-wealthy folks should pay more in taxes.

3 — What About "Entitlements?" "The plan includes no changes in Social Security and does not include an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, which the president had considered this summer," The Associated Press reports.
4 — The Cuts: According to senior administration officials, the AP says, the plan includes "nearly $250 billion in reductions in Medicare spending, $330 billion in cuts in other mandatory benefit programs, and savings of $1 trillion from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."
5 — Its Chances: Lawmakers just went through a bruising political battle over the deficit and the government nearly went into default as they argued over what to do. What are the chances that this plan — something of a "grand bargain" that could anger liberals and conservatives — will fare any better?
"If the left digs in and says you can't touch Medicare" and other entitlement programs and "the right digs in and says you can't raise taxes ... it's going to be a long and unproductive 14 months" between now and the November 2012 elections, Scott says.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/19/140591817/five-things-to-know-about-obamas-deficit-plan?sc=nl&cc=nh-20110919

Related NPR Stories

Obama To Propose $1.5 Trillion In New Tax Revenue Sept. 18, 2011