Russia's UN veto: an explanation
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
(Edited).. does anyone know of research or critical analysis about the seemingly aberrant, though consistent, UN voting behavior of China and Russia?
Jon,
I caught a very short Q&A on BBC Radio Four's Today programme, with a very short comment by a BBC Russian Service analyst and a Syrian reporter in exile (Starts 2:55):http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01bldpj
There's also a BBC analysis, on Russia's stance:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16892728
An interim offer of help.
One Turk's View of Russian Rationale
TZ - News again featured Syria as its lede story.
I think this commentary (7 Feb 2012) on Russia's policies underlying the veto makes sense.
Has Syria become Russia's Middle Eastern lebensraum?:
Quote:
The international media has narrowed its focus, and analysis and judgment has been concentrated on Moscow's role in the delays. The key question here is why Russia opposes the UNSC resolution, whether is it true that Moscow perceives Syria as its political “lebensraum” (living space) in the Middle East.
... [describes tenuous Syrian-Russian relations before 2005, picking up in that year] ... There are several motivating factors at play here, in addition to the aforementioned developments in Russian-Syrian relations.
On one hand, if Syria arrives at a post-Assad period, it could improve its relations with neighboring countries, which would in turn weaken Russia's economic position in Syria. Russian business investments in Syrian infrastructure, energy and tourism amount to nearly $20 billion.
On the other hand, if a fundamentalist regime were to come to power in Damascus, Russia risks losing its contracts, investments and other benefits -- particularly the strategically located Syrian maritime port of Tartus, first used by the USSR as a supply hub during the Cold War, in addition to Latakia, Syria's second largest port, where it has a smaller base.
The most obvious reason for Russia's resistance to drastic change in Syria is that any such shifts would threaten Moscow's strategic position, economic interests and political ambiguity in the Middle East. ... [describes Russian problem with UNSC Libyan resolution allowing NATO to take over Libyan operations] ...
Moreover, Russia sees Syria as an opportunity to take part in “rebuilding the Middle East” by participating in peace talks. ... Russia understands that Assad's days are over and is considering how to safeguard its position in the region. This is why they support a controlled exit (of Assad). If the Syrian opposition agrees to talks in Moscow with the incumbent Syrian regime, Moscow will likely maintain its economic and strategic position in Syria in the post-Assad period.
Furthermore, the Russian government has accused the US and other Western countries of encouraging anti-Putin protests and funding opposition movements. They have been disappointed by the comparisons being drawn by the Western media between recent protests in Russia and the Arab Spring revolutions. While the West has seen its own grassroots protests (for example, the “Occupy” protests in the US and UK), these actions can scarcely be compared to the Arab Spring revolutions -- but nonetheless Russia has argued that the West is in no position to criticize or comment, let alone intervene in Russian domestic affairs.
Saturday's vetoes clearly indicate that this issue is linked to the Iran question. China and Russia, who sit on the 5+1 group negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program, have opposed the oil embargo against Iran: China imports about 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Iran. Both countries have an interest in checking US influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and have been developing strong strategic relationships with Iran.
Only one of these factors (the paragraph I put in italics dealing with Russian internal affaris) is explicitly set forth in the legal arguments supporting the veto - and that without mentioning Russia's concerns about its own dissidents.
Regards
Mike
From my armchair - this isn't good
I have been asked a few times by friends about military intervention in Syria and have rejected as both practical and likely - if by the West (whatever that means).
Nor am I convinced - without the USA - that there is a real will and a current capability to intervene against the existing Syrian state.
The only neighbour who has been active diplomatically on possibly taking military intervention, in a very limited way, has been Turkey and the imposition of 'safe havens'. I don't recall any similar comments by Syria's other neighbours, notably Jordan and Iraq. Lebanon is not today able to independently decide.
Mulling over the topic today, as 'militarise the situation' appeared, it struck me that there is a worst case scenario.
The West enables a military intervention (very general term I accept), which degrades further the Syrian regime's power and includes attacking air defences. Then Israel launches a strike on Iran, which may include overflying Syria and the Syrian regime bolstered by the spirit of Arab nationalism regains sufficient power to survive.