Posted By Paul Bonicelli
Monday, February 6, 2012 - 10:07 AM
Share
How to explain the Russian and Chinese vetoes of the U.N. resolution condemning the Syrian government's continuing killing spree against its own people? What strategic interest or moral imperative dominates their thinking?
Officially, Russia and China claim to be preventing the international community from doing another Libya; they are insisting on patience and "balance." The U.S., UK, France, the rest of the Security Council and pretty much the rest of the world, including the Arab League, beg to differ. Those speaking out the most forcefully don't buy what they consider excuse making for a bloody dictator.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice finds no ethical stance that can justify it, calling the vetoes "disgusting" and "shameful" and warning that the blame for the future deaths of Syrian civilians is on Russia and China. Amb. Rice does not comment on what strategic interests the vetoing states might be pursuing, though we can certainly speculate.
For Russia, Syria's dictatorship is its last client left standing in the Middle East, both political and economic since Syria provides a warm seaport and buys Russian weaponry. To watch it fall means ceding the field largely to the U.S. and the EU, and losing revenue. The stakes are indeed high for Russia. For China, the best explanation is inertia; China defines its national interest -- apart from its freedom to engage in commerce wherever it can -- according to the principle of non-intervention. Its reaction to the Syria situation is like its reaction to every other such situation: everyone should mind his own business, we like things as they are. (That China seems to contradict itself when it comes to Filipino, Vietnamese, or Japanese territorial interests requires a little semantic gymnastics.)
But let's look at this matter from thirty thousand feet. This latest turn in the Syrian tragedy reminds one of Talleyrand's famous comment applied to Napoleon's judicial murder of a noble: "[I]t was worse than a crime, it was a mistake." That is, the stance the Russians and the Chinese are taking hinders them from attaining the very goal they seek: to be seen as legitimate world leaders on par with the U.S. and the EU. When the West and the Arab League are on the same page, and most of the second and third ranking powers and beyond are with them, any state taking Bashar al-Assad's side is hard-pressed to stake a claim for world leadership. Syria's blatant violation of the norms of the U.N. Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights is patently obvious, as was the late Muammar Qaddafi's. For Russia and China to fail to recognize that and join the rest of the world in condemning it and seeking an end to these violations is in some ways worse: We expect tyrants like al-Assad to do what he is doing, but since the democracy revolutions and the Arab Spring, we rightly expect a different reaction from members of the Security Council entrusted with the only international organizational authority to do something about it.
No one expects Russia to lightly watch an ally go down, or for China to acquiesce in what it considers the violation of the most important international relations principle. Neither country wants to see further precedents being set of the average citizen rising up to challenge the established power. But I'd use their own words against them, the words they used in announcing their veto regarding the need in the resolution for "balance." There was a certain logic to calls for "balance" during the Cold War no matter how clanging it sounded. Much of international relations was a zero-sum game. But the Cold War is over. The publics of the Middle East are all in various stages of uprising and rebellion against centuries of tyranny, and they are aided by technology and social media in a way that means they will not be deterred short of death. That is a fact. Therefore, to oppose them and call for "balance" or "restraint" is to side with those who would without compunction kill as many of their citizens as they have to in order to stay in power; we're talking genocide now as a matter of course and endless instability. The democracy genie is out of the bottle.
So now the logic of "balance" is moot; urging acceptance of the democracy-crushing status quo is a spent force. International prestige and legitimate claims to world leadership now rest on those who accept that history has indeed ended in this sense: People want the dignity of self-government and they have the technological means to perpetually bring once unshakeable dictators to the nightmare scenario. Would-be world leaders should choose the right side now. After all, both ethics and logic point the way clearly now. That's the real "reset" that is needed, and it is good to see the Obama administration's diplomats at the UN representing it.
Why China, Russia won't condemn Syrian regime by Holly Yan (CNN) Feb 05, 2012
"As international leaders express outrage over mass killings in Syria -- and lament the inability to pass a U.N. Security Council resolution denouncing the Syrian regime -- questions linger about the two countries behind the impasse. On Saturday, China and Russia vetoed a draft resolution that would have demanded Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stop the killing and answer calls aimed at finding a Syrian-led solution to the 11-month crisis. Analysts say both China and Russia have their reasons to maintain good relations with Syria. Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers and China is ranked as Syria's third-largest importer in 2010, according to data from the European Commission."
Not about the money for China...
China's world trade is about 3000B; China-Syria trade rounds up to about 3B. It's a drop in the bucket, and China would not incur west's wrath for such piddly amount.
It is all about China-Russia relationship. Up to the actual veto, China pretty much stayed out of the picture; and only spoken up after Russia made its stance- a quid pro quo, either as payback for Russia's past support or a down payment for future cooperation.
We're talking about an emerging realpolitik here: Russia+China vs. the rest.
No, not that simple.
1)The economy continues to deteriorate, and finally EU breaks up. Germany becomes a dominant power of European continent, while UK retakes its old “Splendid Isolation” stance.
2)Globalization stops progressing, and many countries resort to protectionism. Remember that Globalization is mainly a West led thing, and its stagnation is more a West failure than a failure of Russia and China.
Hence, we are entering a more fragmented world. Your proposition of “Russia China vs Rest” is not accurate enough at all.
The simplest explanation is the most likely
And the simplest explanation is this:
1) Obama and Clinton established a new precedent when they pushed through that UNSC resolution on Libya, thereby giving them the excuse to "justify" toppling one side in a civil war.
2) Obama and Clinton are now trying to elevate that precedent into a new NORM of international law by pushing through a UNSC resolution on Syria, whereafter they will do to Assad what they did to Gaddafi.
3) Russia and China can add two and two together, and decided that they didn't want to see this New World Order happening right in front of their eyes.
4) So They Vetoed That Very Cunning Plan.
Why look any further than that?
Why is it so impossible to believe that the Russians might juuuuuust be being honest about what they are doing, and why they are doing it?
Consider what might have happened in case of Egypt?
Remember how the US refused to add Egypt to the agenda of the SC? Remember how Obama and Hillary backed Mubarak at the start of the protests? Russia may turn the same cloak eventually.
"Veto of Syria resolution demonstrates Russian desperation and Chinese stagnation"
I guess this why Rice, Clinton and the author have barked so hard for.
Mother earth belongs to subjects, not only to ironfist rulers.
China and Russia must recognize the rights of the subjects of not only Syria who are being massacred by dictator King Asad but also move resolutions in the security Council of United Nations to stop the massacre and killings of Balochs by Talibani Pakistani Military. If the atrocities of the brutal forces are ignored, the evil powers shall spread in the whole world and the world shall move towards 17th centurey.
what's about the US' veto last year on the Israeli issue?
When in doubt, blame the other guys...
China Defends its Veto of UN Resolution on Syria by Stephanie Ho | VOA | Feb 06, 2012
"China strongly defended its veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria again Monday, saying its decision was ultimately aimed at avoiding more casualties. Monday's Foreign Ministry briefing was dominated by China's decision, along with Russia's, to block the resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on anti-government protesters and calling for President Bashar al-Assad to resign. China may be following Russia's lead on the issue, but Beijing also has its own concerns. Chinese leaders are afraid of Western intervention because they do not want to see another Libya or another Egypt."
---------------------
Russia Rejects Criticism of Its U.N. Veto on Syria by MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ (NYT) Feb 6, 2012
"Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Monday lashed out at critics of Russia’s decision to veto a United Nations resolution on Syria and reiterated objections to the plan, which was aimed at stopping the violence there. In the wake of the United Nations vote this weekend, there has been widespread international condemnation of Russia and China, which also vetoed the measure. Speaking at a news conference after meeting with Bahrain’s foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov once again criticized the resolution for failing to hold opposition forces accountable for violence they have committed in their fight against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. He also said the vote should have been put off until after he and the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service, Mikhail Y. Fradkov, met with Mr. Assad in Damascus on Tuesday."
Correct action on the part of China and Russia
Normal protesters don’t get backing from the GCC, Turkey, the CIA, MI6 with interference training, weapons and other military supplies. Also many of the Syrian “rebels” are GCC sponsored foreign fighters such as the Salafists. Also there is a big difference between protesting vocally and firing weapons at the police and government troops or bombing people, pipelines and buildings in Syria. And because of this foreign meddling, over the last year, a law and order issue for Syria has now escalated into a full blown civil war.
In my opinion, the Chinese and the Russians were right to veto that fixed resolution at the UN.
They wouldn't have dared to do that even a few years ago but Russia's trade with the GCC is minimal and she doesn't need the latter's oil. As for China, the recession in the USA has already reduced imports from China and the Obama administration and the opposition were already using China as a political punch-bag. But China has now a big growing domestic market herself providing opportunities for Western companies; has large amounts of FX reserves and, unlike the USA, is not bogged down with unneccesary overseas wars. This veto actually shows the relative decline of US influence more than anything else but then that's the fault of the latter's own greedy capitalism and uncritical support for the largest military machine that the world have ever seen been used in unnecessary wars.
No Paul, you are lame and desperate. Russia and China are the only sane countries on the Security Council. The rest just wish to plunder another nation to secure their geopolitical interests and secure energy exploitation contracts for their domestic firms.
Obama tries to harvest cheap PR points in this processed. Obama knew that the American media will cheer him loudly regardless of the outcome of he resolution. It it passes: "we are the champions of peace!" if it is blocked: "we are the champions of peace, but these dictators won't let us have our way!". Remember how he appropriated "victory" in Libya, even though it meant turning the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood?
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE