The rise of China – and Western deferral to the United Nations – is making the world safer for tyrants:

China protects Syria’s tyrant (Andrew Bolt)

Syria Massacres 260 in One Day… (TROP)

Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution Saturday calling for Syrian President Bashar Assad to resign, prompting the US delegate to react with “disgust” that the permanent council members had thwarted international action to stop 11 months of bloodshed.

“The United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said. “For months this council has been held hostage by a couple of members,” she said, which she said had been “delaying and stripping bare any text to force Assad to stop his actions.”

Rice said the vetoes were “even more shameful” given Russia has continued to sell weapons to Damascus.

That said, how to replace Assad with something better?

Some interesting thoughts from Pamela Geller:

Russia and China veto resolution on Syria at UN

What is the goal of Obama’s State Department whose mission is statecraft and crafting policy, not for today, but for 20 to 20 years from now? If you can’t overthrow them all, why Mubarak and not Ahmadinejad? Why Qaddafi and not Assad? What is the strategy? What is the statecraft objective?

Here again is further proof of the uselessness (and worse) of the United Nations. Whatever sway or swagger American had in that collective negation of humanity has withered under the effete Obama. This is further proof of Iran’s growing influence (Syria is a vassal state, a proxy of Iran).

“When an institution reaches the degree of corruption, brazen cynicism and dishonor demonstrated by the U.N. in its shameful history, to discuss it at length is to imply that its members and supporters may possibly be making an innocent error about its nature—which is no longer possible. There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China—an action forbidden by the U.N.’s own charter—was a ‘moment of truth,’ a naked display of the United Nation’s soul.


What was Red China’s qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China? The fact that she was a friend of the United States.”


Ayn Rand (1972) [“The Shanghai Gesture—Part II,” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol 1, No. 14]

Asked in a 1964 interview for Playboy magazine if she would “favor U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations,” Ayn Rand answered:


“Yes. I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons, I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.”