<P> Several attempts were made by the U.S. government in the course of 2011 to 2013 to pass Security Council resolutions invoking R2P to justify military intervention in the Syrian Civil War . These were vetoed by Russia and China . The Russian and Chinese governments both issued statements to the effect that, in their opinion, R2P had been abused by the U.S. as a pretext for "regime change", more particularly in the case of Libya, and that as far as they were concerned they would be extremely suspicious of any future Security Council resolutions invoking R2P, based on past experience . According to the UN's own 4 October 2011 coverage of the meeting of the Security Council: </P> <P> (Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin) was alarmed that compliance with Security Council resolutions in Libya had been considered a model for future actions by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It was important to see how that model had been implemented . The demand for a ceasefire had turned into a civil war, the humanitarian, social and military consequences of which had spilled beyond Libya . The arms embargo had turned into a naval blockade on west Libya . Such models should be excluded from global practice . </P> <P> (...) (China's UN Ambassador Li Baodong) hoped that the (Syrian) Government would follow through on reform and a process of dialogue . The Council should encourage those objectives while respecting Syria's sovereignty's (sic) and territorial integrity . Any action it took should contribute to peace and stability and comply with the United Nations Charter principles of non-interference in internal affairs . </P> <P> The question of military intervention under the third pillar of R2P remains controversial . Several states have argued that R2P should not allow the international community to intervene militarily on states, because to do so is an infringement upon sovereignty . Others argue that this is a necessary facet of R2P, and is necessary as a last resort to stop mass atrocities . A related argument surrounds the question as to whether more specific criteria should be developed to determine when the Security Council should authorize military intervention . </P>

Of the following which is not a responsibility of a us ambassador