Reply #2: Wording was iffy in the March Libya Resolution

[dipsydoodle]

From 18th March this year :

Russia's envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said preparations for the vote were "not in line with the existing Security Council practices," but Russia did not veto the resolution, acting in accordance with basic UN principles, which urge protection of civilians.
>
Churkin said that another resolution, proposed by Russia on March 16 stressed the need of peace settlement in Libya, and expressed regret that some Security Council members preferred "forceful measures" to peace settlement.

He also said the original wording of the document was changed to the point where it did not correspond with the original concept.

"The text included clauses paving the way for a large-scale military intervention," he said.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110318/163067336.html

It was obvious that neither Russia or China would fall for that stunt again. The fault here with failure of the proposed resolution on Syria lies with the travesty known as The Libyan Resolution : not with Russia or China.