42 reasons to dismiss Susan Rice’s rage

Rami G. Khouri writes: I chuckled softly to myself last week when I followed the news coverage of how angrily the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, condemned the Russian and Chinese vetoes of a Security Council resolution that sought to end the escalating conflict in Syria. The media emphasized that Rice was really, really angry, as only a righteous American ambassador can be when condemning moves by other great powers to use their veto to stop collective action by the council in the service of applying the rule of law.

Rice said that she was “disgusted” by the double veto, and added that, “A couple of members of this council remain steadfast in their willingness to sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant.”

She was correct, of course, and we should all share her anger at the double veto, because the ongoing killings by all sides in Syria are unacceptable by any standards. We should take her position seriously because displays of public anger by ambassadors are noteworthy in themselves, and this is especially true for ambassadors of powerful countries like the United States that send their army around the world at will, usually at great cost to all involved.

Yet I chuckle nevertheless, because am not sure whether we should assess Ms. Rice’s outburst at the level of Russian and Chinese policy, conditions in Syria, the work of the U.N. Security Council, or the foreign policy consistency or duplicity of the United States.

Each of these domains is significant. Yet try as I may, I cannot take Rice and the U.S. seriously here, because the U.S. sets the world’s gold standard on using vetoes in the Security Council to shield criminal activity, by Israel in particular. I am not sure if Rice and the U.S. government think the world is stupid or merely perpetually servile to American swagger.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 thoughts on “42 reasons to dismiss Susan Rice’s rage

  1. Yonatan

    The biggest fool of all believes that the US government cares for the Syrian people. It’s all about regime change.

  2. citizen

    When it is about empire then skin color doesn’t mean anything (Powel, Rice, Obama, Rice again,….)

  3. Mndwss

    Susan Rice [October 5, 2011] condemning the Russian and Chinese veto against the European-drafted UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria:


    “The united States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security. Several members have sought for weeks to weaken and strip bare any text that would have defended the lives of innocent civilians from Assads brutality. Today two members have vetoed a vastly water downed text that doesn’t even mention sanctions”.

    “Let there be no doubt, this is not about military intervention. This is not about Libya. That is a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime then stand with the Syrian people.”

    What will she say if she has to veto the PA bid for statehood?

    She could save money for speech writers and use my suggestion:

    The united States is outraged that this counsil has utterly failed to address the urgent moral challenge to protect the brutal israeli apartheid regime against the growing threat of freedom and justice for the Palestinian people and the growing threat of regional democracy that would bring peace and security to the Arab world. We have sought for months to pressure, blackmail and even threatened to kill members of this counsil to make them vote against a resolution that would have defended the lives of innocent civilians from Israels brutality. Today we have have vetoed a vastly popular resolution that doesn’t even mention sanctions against Israel.

    Let there be no doubt, this is about military domination. This is about Israeli and US control of the region. This is our way of telling the world that we will continue to sell arms to the Israeli regime rather then stand with the defenseless Palestinian people.

  4. delia ruhe

    Personally, I don’t know how Susan Rice lives with herself. She did such a Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde turnaround upon the election of Obama that I couldn’t believe it was the same person. I had to go back to the archived interviews of her at TRNN.

Comments are closed.