Russia, China... UN Security Council?

Just finished reading Sorrelle's post on the UN Security Council's inability to intervene in Syria. I think that it is definitely an accurate assessment to say that the U.N. Security Council is in factions right now, but I don't think that the factions are merely just the result of skepticism due to recent US intervention efforts. This CNN article points to economics as one of the possible explanation for China's and Russia's reluctance to condemn the Syrian government. Russia has been dealing arms to the al-Assad regime, and China has been Syria's 3rd largest importer in recent years. However the divide between Russia and China and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council may also be an ideological divide. Looking at the 5 permanent member countries, Russia and China stand out as ideological black sheep. China is notorious for its human rights abuses, and over 100,000 protestors demonstrated in Moscow this weekend over allegations of voter fraud in Russia's last election. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that these two governments actively pose dangers to their citizens, they seem less concerned with their own citizen's well-being than they do with political stability. Which leads me to wonder how effectively two countries that are questionable when it comes to human rights can mitigate international conflicts and maintain peace? 

It isn't practical or prudent to kick China and Russia off the security council, but perhaps thought could be given towards reforming the veto clause. We've been discussing how economics sometimes clashes with human rights and the protection of life, and compared with the complexities of intellectual property laws, streamlining the ability of the UN Security Council to intervene on the behalf of innocent civilians seems like an easy fix.