Russia's UN veto: an explanation
Jon,Originally Posted by jcustis
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.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-06-2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason: Add time of radio slot
davidbfpo
Today's Zaman - part 1
After having been relatively quiet about Syria in the past couple of weeks, TD's News Section (6 Feb 2012) has multiple Syria stories, including the lede story, Syrian forces bombard Homs, 50 killed:
I'd expect the overt Russian legal response to be that such sanctions are "economic aggression" - a position taken since the 1930s as to sanctions they do not like.6 February 2012 / REUTERS, BEIRUT
Syrian forces bombarded Homs on Monday, killing 50 people in a sustained assault on several districts of the city which has become a centre of armed opposition to President Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian National Council opposition group said.
"The tally that we have received from various activists in Homs since the shelling started at six this morning is 50, mostly civilians," the group's Catherine al-Talli told Reuters.
"The regime is acting as if it were immune to international intervention and has a free hand to use violence against the people," she said.
The bombardment came a day after the United States promised harsher sanctions against Damascus in response to Russian and Chinese vetoes of a draft UN resolution that would have backed an Arab plan urging Assad to step aside.
...
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would work with other nations to try to tighten "regional and national" sanctions against Assad's government "to dry up the sources of funding and the arms shipments that are keeping the regime's war machine going".
"We will work to expose those who are still funding the regime and sending it weapons that are used against defenseless Syrians, including women and children," she said. "We will work with the friends of a democratic Syria around the world to support the opposition's peaceful political plans for change."
Clinton did not say which nations might band together or precisely what they might do. But it appeared that the United States might seek to help organise a "Friends of Syria" group - proposed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy after the veto - to advance the Arab League initiative given the inability to make headway at the U.N. because of Russian and Chinese opposition.
OIC voices deep regret over no UN agreement on Syria:
Organization of Islamic Cooperation - Wiki.5 February 2012 / TODAY'S ZAMAN, İSTANBUL
The General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has expressed deep regret over the failure of the UN Security Council to reach an agreement on a draft resolution on Syria which called for the settlement of the current crisis in Syria and the immediate cessation of all acts of violence.
The organization in a statement on Sunday expressed the hope that the inability of the Security Council to adopt the resolution on the Syrian crisis will not result in more deaths in Syria.
The General Secretariat renewed its call on all Syrian parties to save the country from the risk of sliding into civil war, a situation that threatens peace, security and stability in Syria and the region as a whole.
The General Secretariat condemned the ongoing violence, which led to the deaths of large numbers of innocent victims in the city of Homs, and called on the Syrian government to focus on a political solution as the best way to resolve the Syrian crisis. It also called on the government to work to institute the reforms it promised to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the Syrian people towards reform and change.
Chief army defector promises fight to free Syria:
BL: The "Western countries" are nowhere near armed intervention.5 February 2012 / AP, BEIRUT
The commander of rebel Syrian soldiers said Sunday there is no choice but to use military force to drive President Bashar Assad's regime from power as fears mounted that government troops will escalate their deadly crackdown on dissent after Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution aimed at resolving the crisis.
...
"There is no other road" except military action to topple Assad after the vetoes at the UN, the commander of the Free Syrian Army told The Associated Press by telephone from Turkey.
"We consider that Syria is occupied by a criminal gang and we must liberate the country from this gang," Col. Riad al-Asaad said. "This regime does not understand the language of politics, it only understands the language of force."
...
A deeply sensitive question is whether such a coalition would back the Free Syrian Army. There appears to be deep hesitation among Western countries, fearing a further militarization of the conflict.
In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV on Saturday after the U.N., the head of the Syrian National Council Burhan Ghalioun said a coalition might give the FSA support "if necessary" to "protect the Syrian people."
Turkey warns Assad to not misread failed resolution at the UN:
These statements simply restate the Turkish position held over the past few months.5 February 2012 / TODAY'S ZAMAN WITH WIRES, ANKARA
Turkey warned the Syrian regime against misreading the will of international community after the UN Security Council failed to adopt a strong resolution following a veto by Russia and China.
“The rejection of this resolution must never constitute a pretext for the Syrian administration to add new mistakes to the existing ones,” a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry said on Saturday. ...
Speaking to a group of reporters on the sidelines of the 48th Munich Security Conference in Germany over the weekend, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu stated that Turkey will not sit idly by in the face of killings perpetrated against civilian protestors in its southern neighbor. He did not specify, however, what steps Ankara is considering against Syria at this juncture.
Delivering a speech at conference, Davutoğlu said Turkey, as a neighboring country, had a moral responsibility for the protection of Syrian people. If needed, Turkey could host Syrian people wanting to escape the violence, he said, adding that this could be a powerful signal to the Assad administration. He dismissed claims that Turkey held talks under a NATO banner for a military intervention in Syria as baseless. Commenting on Iran, Davutoğlu said that a military intervention in Iran would be disaster for the region and urged negotiations instead.
...
Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç slammed Iran on Sunday, saying that if Tehran keeps silent in face of the atrocities committed in Homs, it should take out the word “Islam” from the official name. “We know there is a country called the ‘Islamic Republic of Iran.' It is not a republic of a certain sect. Intentionally killing Muslims on such a [Holy] day is not something that can be disregarded,” he said in Bursa province. Arınç also claimed that the number of causalities in Homs has reached 500.
Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ also warned that the Syrian crisis should not be treated as political rivalry among competing global powers. “Countries should view Syria from a humanitarian perspective. If they continue to see it from a political rivalry persective, the Syrian regime will keep killing its own people,” he said in The Hague.
Justice and Development Party (AK Party) Manisa deputy Naci Bostancı, who is also deputy chairman of the Human Rights Commission in the Turkish Parliament, told Today's Zaman that the Assad regime continues to misread the demands of its own people as well as calls from international stakeholders. “The regime will see this failed resolution as support for its actions,” he warned, adding that the fate of Assad was sealed no matter how hard he tries to cling onto power. ...
From the same article, we learn that Syria has learned some "Lawfare" art:
Syrian UN envoy Bashar Ja'afari denied that Syrian forces killed hundreds of civilians in Homs, saying that "no sensible person" would launch such an attack the night before the Security Council was set to discuss his country. Syrian Information Minister Adnan Mahmud accused Syrian rebels of shelling Homs to "to swing the vote" at the Security Council. "The reports on some satellite channels that the Syrian army shelled neighborhoods in Homs are fabricated and unfounded," Mr. Mahmud said in a statement to AFP. The online news media firatnews.com, a mouthpiece for the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which stages attacks against Turkey, hailed the veto decision of Russian and China and reported on what Mr. Mahmud had said with regard to Homs.and that limited fallout occurs on the Turkish side of the border.There were reports that the Syrian army had engaged in a gun battle with the opposition forces nearby Turkish border village of Guvecci overlooking Syria. The Cihan News Agency filed a story on Sunday from Hatay province that villagers in Guvecci reported gun fire on Saturday night. A few bullets hit a solar panel on the roof of a house in the village and authorities urged residents to stay indoors.
cont. in part 2.
Today's Zaman - part 2
Turkish FM: Turks, Arabs to pay the price for Russian, Chinese veto:
To aged historians of the Cold War (5 February 2012 / TODAYSZAMAN.COM,
Strongly criticizing Russia and China for vetoing a UN Security Council resolution aimed at ending the bloodshed in Syria, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has said Turks and Arabs will pay the price for these nay votes.
“They cast the vote but Arabs and Turks will pay the price for it,” he was quoted as saying by Turkey's NTV news channel. ...
The Turkish foreign minister once again vowed solidarity with the Syrian people, saying his country would welcome Syria's entire population with open arms. “Our doors are open to the Syrians who are currently in trouble,” he said.
...
NATO member Turkey shares a 900-kilometer-long border with Syria. Top Turkish leaders have criticized Syria's crackdown on protesters many times and called on former ally Bashar al-Assad to step down. Turkey has also imposed sanctions on Damascus.
Turkey is currently hosting several thousand Syrian refugees, including members of the rebel Syrian Free Army, at camps, while the opposition Syrian National Council meets regularly in İstanbul.), the question is whether the closer analogy here is 1954 Guatamala or 1961 Bay of Pigs.
Russia, China and Iran have their share in every drop of blood Assad sheds:
BL: A trioika and the congruent interests of its members (Russia, China and Iran) are the real reasons (as opposed to the "legal cover") for the veto and support of Syria (otherwise a bit player - although in author Kenes' opinion, the UN is of even lower impact).Bloodthirsty Bashar al-Assad is committing a new crime against humanity every day and for all the world to see. On the anniversary of the massacre his father committed in Hama 30 years ago, on Feb. 3, 1982, he carried out a complete butchery in Homs.
...
... In this process, the impotency or uselessness of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), where Russia and China, as the main supporters of Syria, enjoy veto power, was proven once again. Because of these country's vetoes, the UNSC not only failed to pass a resolution to take preventive action against the massacres in Syria, but was also unable to issue a resolution to support the Arab League's decision to make Assad resign and to condemn the human rights violations by Syria.
...This was proof enough that the UNSC is a good-for-nothing organization while a despot is ruthlessly killing civilians before the eyes of the civilized world, and it must be reorganized according to current circumstances.
...
The responsibility of the blood spilled in Syria will fall not only on the shoulders of the despotic Assad regime. Along with Russia and China, which are acting as supports to this illegitimate system of oppression, Iran, which ruthlessly continues to lend full support to this bloody regime because of a sectarian affinity and its geopolitical interests in the region, as well as the groups in the region who are under Iran's influence, will be held responsible as well. Each drop of blood spilled in Syria will forever remain as a black stain on the foreheads of Russia and China as well as Iran, who similarly legitimizes this tyranny.
Iran's suicide:
The Syrian crisis is well nigh the biggest blow to the current Iranian regime's prestige since it was established in 1979. It is now safe to argue that Iran is squandering the soft power it has been exercising among the various Muslim groups around the globe.
Whether Shiite or Sunni, many Muslims have valued the Iranian model as a highly significant one. Its domestic problems and weaknesses notwithstanding, Iran has been appreciated as the alternative Muslim state model. Even those who are critical of the Iranian model have endorsed Iran's criticism of the West. No matter how differently Muslims have approached the Iranian regime, the crux of the matter has always been Tehran's elevated moral stature in Muslim politics. Iran's moral discourse on global politics has appealed to Muslims everywhere, so much so that mainstream anti-Iranian Muslims in other countries have trodden very carefully when speaking of Iran.
...
As I noted above, all states have their national strategies. One can easily criticize each of them on moral grounds. However, there is a major factor that differentiates Iran from countries like Russia and China: The Muslim world has no expectations from China or Russia with regard to the Syrian crisis. Thus, no matter how amorally pragmatic it is, neither the Russian nor the Chinese agenda on Syria can frustrate the Muslim people. The Syrian crisis is firstly an internal Muslim-world problem. It is the other Muslim states' reactions that are of primary importance in the global Muslim community. Therefore, the silence from Tehran on the killings of civilians in Syria frustrates all Muslims who expect a decisive moral interdiction from Iran when a state is killing its Muslim citizens.
...
Iran certainly has the right to formulate its national strategy on regional issues. Moreover, many of the Iranian theses on the future of Syria cannot be said to be false. Meanwhile, one can find concrete reasons for criticizing the intra-Muslim positions of other Muslim states, including Turkey's. But none of these considerations can hide the fact that Iran has a historical responsibility to be active in defusing the Syrian crisis. There is a deadlock now, and Iran is among the few countries that can push this case towards a humane and local resolution. If Tehran fails to try, it will tear a serious hole in the fabric of other Muslims' alignment with the country.
This article is a good example of the point made in "Unrestricted Warfare" that a moralistic and somewhat sanctimonious nation - taking the lead in its "sphere of influence" - will be held to its own rules. From an agitprop technical critique, nicely done, author Bacik.
Arab League got it all wrong:
USAians might think US and Mexico to gain some "feel" for Turkey's view of Syria....
As an organization created in the atmosphere of the Cold War, the UN is no longer capable of issuing decisions that relieve the conscience of the international community.
And it is not realistic to expect such a structure to develop this capability in future.
Turkey will be walking on thin ice while the balance of power in the region is being reshaped in a Cold War-like atmosphere.
On one hand, Russia and Iran, which back the Assad regime, are our two major neighbors.
On the other hand, there is the Kurdish issue, which may spread to Syria.
There is also the likelihood of a Sunni-Shiite conflict as a result of any military operation against Syria.
The ongoing protests in Bahrain are proof that Iran can play this card at the drop of a hat.
Stability in Syria will be hard to attain without eliminating Iran’s concerns and considering Russia’s demands.
The country with which we have the longest common border is on the way to descending into a civil war that may last for many years to come.
A civil war in Syria is likely to cause much trouble for Turkey, given the fact that it has long suffered from the violence originating from this country.
Today, one-third of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) consists of Syrian Kurds and the top positions within the organization are held by Syrian terrorists. And there are rumors that an independent Kurdish state will be established in northern Iraq in March. All these suggest that Turkey is heading toward a very critical period.
Unlike the US and Russia, Turkey sees the developments in Syria as a domestic matter and recent developments indicate that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s concerns about the region were correct.
Clearly, it would be to the benefit of all players in the region if Russia finds a formula that can secure its own strategic position.
cont. in part 3.
Last edited by jmm99; 02-06-2012 at 06:25 PM.
Today's Zaman - part 3
Would Turkey intervene in Syria?
I'd not even speculate what back-channel offers are flowing back and forth, esp. given the other major topic in TZ - Iran and Israel.Recently, the Syrian regime has increased its operations against the opposition. The death toll has risen to such an unbearable level that the international community wants to step in. Yet, the UN is incapable of passing a resolution because Syria is strategically important for both Iran and Russia, and Russia has the right to veto resolutions before the UN Security Council.
[Author Uslu discusses all military options other than Turkey, none feasible; and gets down to Turkey] ... The only remaining option in this case is Turkey.
Turkey is against outside intervention in Syria. However, the level of bloodshed in Syria has created anger among the Turkish public towards Syria that may lead the government to reconsider its initial policies.
Even if Turkey changes its position and is willing to intervene in Syria, Turkey would not form a collation with the Arab League to conduct such a military operation. There are two reasons for this. First, the Turkish political elite have a deep distrust of the West, especially since the EU abandoned Cyprus and left Turkey alone in many cases. Hence, Turkey would not intervene in Syria because the Turkish political elite think that such action would backfire and open new doors for other countries to intervene in Turkey’s domestic affairs if the Kurdish question gets out of control. For Turkey, there must be international recognition that international force is needed prior to intervention. It seems that US policy makers are trying to build a coalition that consists of the Arab League and Turkey, but this is not enough for Turkey to intervene.
Second, Turkey has its own fears. Especially Iranian influence over some proxy organizations in Turkey and Bashar al-Assad’s influence on Turkey’s Alevi community make Turkey think twice when it comes to a military intervention in Syria. Pro-Iranian Turkish journalists, for instance, have threatened Turkey, stating Turkey’s Alevi community is unhappy with Turkey’s policies regarding Syria. There is evidence of this threat as Alevi journalists and intellectuals have been harshly criticizing the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s policies. Thus, for domestic reasons, too, Turkey is not likely to intervene.
The only way Turkey would intervene would be if the conflict gets out of control and refuges pour into Turkey, if Turkish public anger reaches a level that the Turkish government has to intervene and if Turkey is allowed to lead NATO forces with the support of the Arab League.
TZ (Today's Zaman - Wiki) is the English-version "paper of record" for Turkish centrists leaning to the right.
I have in my mind an admittedly overly-sentamentalized word picture of the Turks:
(from Fehrenbach, of course; This Kind of War, p.338). The Turks sent another brigade.The detail of what happened will probably never be reported; the essence has been: The Turkish Brigade was destroyed. ... Tall, pale-eyed men in dark faces, in heavy greatcoats, wielding long bayonets, the Turks refused to fall back. There were observers who said some officers threw their hats to the ground, marking a spot beyond which they would not retreat, and, surrounded by the enemy, died "upon their fur". There were others, all else failing, who threw cold steel at the enemy in bayonet charges. Rarely has a small action, dimly seen, sketchily reported, sent such intimations of glory flashing across the world. ... But the Turks died.
Reading these "Young Turks" brings me up to the present-day reality.
Regards
Mike
Maybe I am still just being daft today, but what are the congruent interests of Russia, China, and Iran? The ability to stick it to the West (and specifically the US) through Lawfare?A trioika and the congruent interests of its members (Russia, China and Iran) are the real reasons (as opposed to the "legal cover") for the veto and support of Syria
An assertion of sovereignty in general, and specifically an assertion of the right to use a strong hand against internal opposition in order to prevent a hypothetical even worse case scenario. That’s what comes to my mind, at least.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Okay, that line of reasoning does make sense. And it does fit with what I already know about the rise of the first two powers, Russia and China.
John,
Mark Safranski makes some good arguments here:
andSo it can hardly be reassuring to Moscow or Beijing that when the dust has yet to settle in Libya, that the United States and it’s NATO allies are now pressing for new UN resolutions designed to justify military intervention in Syria to overthrow Bashar Assad. Like the late and unlamented Colonel Gaddafi, Bashar Assad is a cold-blooded murderer, but unlike the crazy Colonel, Assad is a client of Russia and close Syrian ties to Moscow go way back to the earliest days of his father’s dictatorship. There’s no way, in such a short amount of time, that an American effort to topple Assad – however justified morally – that Vladimir Putin and to be truthful, many ordinary Russians, would not view that as a Western attempt to humiliate Russia. And R2P would indicate still more humiliations to come!
Read the whole thing.Iran, North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe and other states ruled by kleptocrats and monsters act as buffers for China and Russia. Aside from the benefits these failed states can bring as customers for military hardware or sellers of raw materials, the attention of Western statesmen and human rights activists are diverted by the cause du jour in these hellholes, rather than being focused on what Beijing and Moscow might be up to at home or abroad. Every dismantling of an anti-Western dictatorship, from their perspective, is a step closer to their direct confrontation with the West’s hyperactive, erratic, morally hypocritical, meddling, ruling elite who will be no more able to ignore “grave injustices” in Wuhai or Kazan than they could in Aleppo or Benghazi.
This is not an argument that we should not press our claims, or not try to keep nukes out of the hands of religious fanatics or refrain from crushing states that attack us with terrorist proxies; we can and should do all of these things with vigor. But when possible, much is to be gained by pursuing our interests in a manner that permits other great powers to at least save face. Destroying Iran’s government because of it’s nuclear activities, for example, is not a strategic “win” if the way we do it convinces China and Russia to form a military alliance against the United States.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
The Economist has a good deal of quality reporting on the subject of Syria including this piece which sheds some light on the complexity of the issues there. On the face of it, it seems like a no brainer but nothing in the world of international relations is ever that simple. To begin with, the Gulf Arab states have competing interests at stake. On the one hand, most of them are hardly paragons of democratic reform and the Arab Spring has probably made most of them nervous if not out right scared. The overthrow of another authoritarian Arab regime is bound to stir up pro-democracy (or at least anti-regime) sentiment in their own states. On the other hand, the mounting excesses of the Assad regime is bringing unwanted attention to the state of governance in the Gulf Arab states as a whole. They are facing further pressure to support the (largely) Sunni opposition forces against an oppressive Shia government by their own populations.
Individual states have interests of their own to consider. Jordan is no friend of the Assad regime but does not relish the idea of Islamists coming to power in Syria. Paradoxically, Israel may have similar feelings. Assad funneled money and equipment to Hamas and Hezbollah but did not pass on chemical or biological weapons nor did he directly threaten Israel. A new, more Islamist government in Syria may not show the same restraint. Of course the interests of Iran and Lebanon in preserving the Shia dominated regime of Assad is fairly obvious and the Shia dominated government in Iraq seems to have aligned itself that way to at least some extent.
For the West, Syria presents difficult problem in that the opposition is divided and disorganized. It is difficult to know who to support or how. The sectarian nature of the crisis is also worrying. The opposition is largely Sunni in composition. That the Shia minority is standing by the regime is no surprise. What is surprising is the fact that several Christian sects, the Druze and even the Kurdish minority are either out right supporting the regime or at least hedging their bets against whoever ultimately triumphs. These groups have benefited from the largely secular nature of the Assad regime and they fear, not with out some justification, the potential backlash if an Islamist government were to take power in Damascus.
The are no simple answers nor courses of action that do not have serious potential consequences. The governments of a good many states are making strong statements about what should be done about Syria but few are probably willing, or able to pair actions with their statements. Ultimately, the world may very well find that the solution to the crisis in Syria is not the best option but rather the least bad one.
Last edited by Uboat509; 02-16-2012 at 10:02 PM.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks