Share This Page

Saudi Arabia rejects seat on Security Council

| Friday, Oct. 18, 2013, 6:06 p.m.
REUTERS
Free Syrian Army fighters are gathered inside a cave in Maaret al-Naaman village, in Idlib October 17, 2013. REUTERS/Loubna Mrie (SYRIA - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST CONFLICT MILITARY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Saudi Arabia on Friday rejected its seat on the U.N. Security Council hours after it was elected to it, in a rare and startling move aimed at protesting the body's failure to resolve the Syrian civil war.

The Saudi discontent appeared largely directed at its longtime ally, the United States, reflecting more than two years of frustration. The two are at odds over a number of Mideast issues, including how Washington has handled some of the region's crises, particularly in Egypt and Syria. It also takes place as ties between the United States and Iran, the Saudi's regional foe, appear to be tepidly improving.

Saudi Arabia showed its displeasure last month when Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal declined to address the General Assembly meeting. Days later, the kingdom's unease with Washington appeared to manifest when President Obama spoke to Iran's new President Hassan Rouhani in a groundbreaking telephone call.

The kingdom was given one of the rotating seats on the 15-member council in a vote Thursday.

On Friday, the Saudi Foreign Ministry issued a statement rejecting the seat, saying the U.N. Security Council had failed in multiple cases in the Middle East. Particularly, it said U.N. failure to act has enabled Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime to perpetrate the killings of its people, including the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian regime denies using chemical weapons.

“Allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the U.N. Security Council's inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities,” the ministry said in the statement carried on the state news agency.

Saudi Arabia backs the rebels fighting to overthrow Assad in a war that has killed 100,000 people since early 2011. Repeated attempts by the U.N. Security Council to address the conflict have fallen apart, usually because Assad's ally Russia has blocked strong resolutions. Still, in a rare consensus, the council passed a resolution on destroying Syria's chemical arsenal after an Aug. 21 chemical attack.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab leaders have backed the Syrian rebels with weapons and financing in part to counter their regional rival Iran, which has strongly thrown its weight behind its ally, Assad. At the same time, the friendly gestures between the United States and Iran's new government have made Saudi Arabia uneasy.

Russia said it was “surprised” and “baffled by the reasons that the kingdom gave to explain its position” — particularly after the chemical weapons resolution. That resolution was passed after Russia brokered Damascus' consent to surrender its chemical arsenal, which it had long kept secret.

There appear to be some efforts under way to get the Saudis to recant. Britain's deputy U.N. ambassador Peter Wilson told reporters his team is looking at what precisely the Saudis meant by their statement and are talking to them “to get a little bit more background on what lies behind this.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.