Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Strickland]

Consider the following analogy: Syrian Uprising vs. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
Just as the Soviets chose to let the Wehrmacht eliminate elements that were identified as being inconsistent with stability in a Soviet-dominated Poland, shouldnt we allow the current Syrian regime to eliminate the most radical elements of the opposition in an effort to foster a greater chance of stability after the regime has fallen?

[davidbfpo]

Strickland partially cited:

..shouldnt we allow the current Syrian regime..

Currently this not a situation in which outsiders, let alone the USA or the West (EU / NATO), are allowing the regime to do anything. Syria, I might add Bahrain is less lethally repressive, is criticised, condemned and subjected to sanctions that appear to have more to do with "taking a stand" than changing regime policy.

As for

..eliminate the most radical elements of the opposition..

From my watching of the situation the Syrian regime would have to kill tens of thousands. Nor are the most radical elements easily separated from the mass of protesters, many would argue the regime's response is what is the radicalising factor.

[Ken White]

...shouldnt we allow the current Syrian regime to eliminate the most radical elements of the opposition in an effort to foster a greater chance of stability after the regime has fallen?

No. That's the short answer. Long answer is 'Why do we care whether Syria is stable or not?' The mid east has not been stable for over 5,000 years and we aren't going to change that -- we were and are foolish to try.

[jmm99]

Combined with the prior Turkish declination to take military action itself, and the Arab League decision to stand down (at least temporarily), the Russian and Chinese vetoes of the proposed UNSC Resolution (Lawfare brief by Jack Goldsmith), reinforce Peter Munson's points (and links), Syria and R2P.

Regards

Mike

[jcustis]

The details and analysis may already be tucked away in a post or two within this thread, but does anyone know of research or critical analysis about the seemingly aberrant, though consistent, UN voting behavior of China and Russia?

I understand that there are financials involved, as well as a sense of "sticking it to the West", but I continue to scratch my head at the full range of forces involved. Any books or papers you could recommended would be appreciated.

As an aside, is it just that simple that China and Russia will veto anything where the US is perceived as instigating for the vote? Ambassador Churkin is quoted in today's LA Times that Western nations have undermined the chance for a political solution by "pushing the opposition towards power," yet Russia hasn't advocated any potential solution.

[Surferbeetle]

Jon,

I too would be interested in more background. In the meantime...

Syria is used to the slings and arrows of friends and enemies, by Robert Fisk Wednesday 01 February 2012, The Independent

True, the Syrian regime has never confronted opposition on such a scale. If the fatalities do not yet come close to the 10 or 20 thousand dead of the 1982 Hama uprising, which old Hafez al-Assad crushed with his customary ruthlessness, the widespread nature of today's rebellion, the defections from the Syrian army, the loss of all but one Arab ally – little Lebanon, of course – and the slow growth of a civil war make this the most dangerous moment in Syria's post-independence history. How can Bashar al-Assad hang on?

Well, there's Russia, of course, and the Putin-Medvedev determination not to be caught out by the West at the United Nations as they were when they failed to oppose the no-fly zones over Libya that led directly to Gaddafi's collapse. And there's Iran, for which Syria remains the Arab bridgehead. And Iranian suspicion that Syria is under international attack principally because of this alliance may well be correct. Strike down Baathist Syria and its Alawi-Shia President, and you cut deep into the soul of Iran itself. And there's Israel, which utters scarcely a word about Syria because it fears that a far more intransigent regime might take its place.

Tartus, Syria by wikipedia

Tartus hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria, which is still staffed by Russian naval personnel. The base was established during the Cold War to support the Soviet Navy fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.[7] During the 1970s, similar support points were located in Egypt and Latakia, Syria. In 1977, the Egyptian support bases at Alexandria and Mersa Matruh were evacuated and the ships and property were transferred to Tartus, where the naval support base was transformed into the 229th Naval and Estuary Vessel Support Division. Seven years later, the Tartus support point was upgraded to the 720th Logistics Support Point.[8]

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and its Mediterranean fleet, the 5th Mediterranean Squadron which was composed of ships from the Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet, ceased its existence. Since then, there have been occasional expeditions by Russian Navy vessels and submarines to the Mediterranean Sea. The naval logistics support base in Syria is now part of the Black Sea Fleet. It consists of three floating docks of which one is operational, a floating workshop, storage facilities, barracks and other facilities.[8]

Since Russia forgave Syria of three quarters, or $9.6 billion, of its $13.4 billion Soviet-era debt and became its main arms supplier in 2006, Russia and Syria have conducted talks about allowing Russia to develop and enlarge its naval base, so that Russia can strengthen its naval presence in the Mediterranean.[9] Amid Russia's deteriorating relations with the West, because of the 2008 South Ossetia War‎ and plans to deploy a US missile defense shield in Poland, President Assad agreed to the port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships.[10][11] Since 2009, Russia has been renovating the Tartus naval base and dredging the port to allow access for its larger naval vessels.[12]

People's Republic of China–Iran relations and People's Republic of China–Syria relations by wikipedia

[jmm99]

In a word: Lawfare.

Start with the 1977 USSR Constitution:

Article 29

The USSR's relations with other states are based on observance of the following principles: sovereign equality; mutual renunciation of the use or threat of force; inviolability of frontiers; territorial integrity of states; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-intervention in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; the equal rights of peoples and their right to decide their own destiny; co-operation among states; and fulfilment in good faith of obligations arising from the generally recognised principles and rules of international law, and from the international treaties signed by the USSR.

Tibor Varady, THE IMPACT OF THE EAST-WEST DIVIDE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW – PATTERNS OF DISCOURSE AND THE WAVES OF 1989 (2010), which points out that Soviet practice (e.g., his Hungary) was, on its face, inconsistent with what was written. The Soviet explanation was an exception for "armed intervention for the purpose of 'safeguarding socialist democracy', or for the purpose of 'establishing democracy'" (Varady, p.9 pdf).

Thus, one might fairly argue, as did Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks), 1977 Parliamentary Debate re: Helsinki Final Act (Belgrade Meeting), that the Soviets were consistent only in their planned inconsistency:

To the Soviets, peaceful co-existence is merely an extension of the class struggle to the international arena—a political, economic, ideological struggle, but certainly not a military one. To the Soviet leaders detente helps to diminish the risk of a third world war, as can be seen in Mr. Brezhnev's speech to the Soviet Communist gathering last year.

I should like to read a short extract from that speech. Mr. Brezhnev said that:

"communists take as their starting point the general laws of the development of revolution and of the building of socialism and communism…. In our time, when detente has 524 become a reality, both in the international workers movement and amongst its opponents, there often arises the question how it influences the class struggle. Some bourgeois politicians express astonishment and create a fuss about the solidarity of Soviet communists and the Soviet people with the struggle of other peoples for freedom and progress. This is either naiveté or, most probably, the deliberate befogging of peoples' brains. For it is as clear as can be that detente and peaceful coexistence relate to interstate relations. This means that disputes and conflicts between countries must not be solved by means of war, by the use of force or by the threat of force. Detente does not and cannot in the least degree rescind or change the laws of the class struggle…. Strict observance of the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other states, respect for their independence and sovereignty—that is one of the prerequisites of detente. We do not conceal"— I emphasise this— "that we see in detente the path to the creation of more favourable conditions for peaceful socialist and communist construction."

That is exactly what the Soviets are doing at the moment. Having read those words one might well ask "When is intervention not intervention?" The only answer there can be is "when it is practised by the Soviets".

Of course, in approaching issues of intervention and aggression, one should refrain from too much sanctimony - and, at the least, think about this quote:

“The ethic of our work, as I understand it, is based on a single assumption. That is, we are never going to be aggressors. . . . Thus we do disagreeable things, but we are defensive. That, I think, is still fair. We do disagreeable things so that ordinary people here and elsewhere can sleep safely in their beds at night.

"Is that too romantic? Of course, we occasionally do very wicked things.” He grinned like a schoolboy. “And in weighing up the moralities, we go in for dishonest comparisons; after all, you can’t compare the ideals of one side with the methods of the other, can you now? . . .

“I mean, you’ve got to compare method with method, and ideal with ideal. I would say that since the war, our methods — ours and those of the opposition — have become much the same. I mean, you can’t be less ruthless than the opposition simply because your government’s policy is benevolent, can you now?” He laughed quietly to himself. “That would never do,” he said.

Simon Chesterman, THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD WAR: INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (2006; from le Carre, of course). One might ask: Who was speaking ? An "Us" or a "Them" ?

As we know from the Chinese version of "Unrestricted Warfare" (which includes Lawfare) is that the First Rule is that there ain't no rules. The impact of intelligence activities on sovereignty has been on the table for a long time. Quincy Wright et al, Essays on espionage and International law (1962; 120 pp. pdf), esp. Quincy Wright's "Espionage and the Doctrine of Non-intervention in Internal Affairs" (starting at page 17 pdf).

As a summary, we have Christi Scott Bartman, Lawfare: Use of the Definition of Aggressive War by the Soviet and Russian Governments (2009)

Abstract

This dissertation seeks to contribute to the understanding of the definition of the terms aggression and aggressive war by tracing the political, legal and military use of the terms by the Soviet Union from that posed at the 1933 Convention for the Definition of Aggression to the definition posed by the Russian Federation to the International Criminal Court in 1999. One might ask why the Soviet Union so adamantly promoted a definition of aggression and aggressive war while, as many have noted, conducting military actions that appeared to violate the very definition they espoused in international treaties and conventions. This dissertation demonstrates that through the use of treaties the Soviet Union and Russian Federation practiced a program of lawfare long before the term became known. Lawfare, as used by the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, is the manipulation or exploitation of the international legal system to supplement military and political objectives. The Soviet Union and Russian Federation used these legal restrictions to supplement military strategy in an attempt, not to limit themselves, but to control other states legally, politically, and equally as important, publicly, through the use of propaganda.

When I peer deeply into his eyes, I see a nationalistic KGB lawyer.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

My faculty advisor (and teacher in this area - UN Charter, Geneva, etc.) told me that the quality of an article will improve in inverse proportion to its new length. So, cut the length in half, the quality will double.

Reducing her dissertation length (over 200 pages) to 23 pages, Christi Scott Bartman, LAWFARE AND THE DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION: WHAT THE SOVIET UNION AND RUSSIAN FEDERATION CAN TEACH US (2011).

I'd suggest reading the short version and then going to her dissertation.

The article is part of a "Lawfare Project" by Case Western Reserve, LAWFARE!:ARE AMERICA'S ENEMIES USING THE LAW AGAINST US AS A WEAPON OF WAR? (Vol. 43, Nos. 1 & 2, 2011), with a bit more detail in a new post in the Lawfare thread, Case Western Reserve - Lawfare.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

(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.

[jmm99]

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:

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.

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.

OIC voices deep regret over no UN agreement on Syria:

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.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation - Wiki.

Chief army defector promises fight to free Syria:

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."

BL: The "Western countries" are nowhere near armed intervention.

Turkey warns Assad to not misread failed resolution at the UN:

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. ...

These statements simply restate the Turkish position held over the past few months.

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.

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.

and that limited fallout occurs on the Turkish side of the border.

cont. in part 2.

[jmm99]

Turkish FM: Turks, Arabs to pay the price for Russian, Chinese veto:

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.

To aged historians of the Cold War (), 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:

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.

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).

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:

...

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.

USAians might think US and Mexico to gain some "feel" for Turkey's view of Syria.

cont. in part 3.

[ganulv]

The details and analysis may already be tucked away in a post or two within this thread, but does anyone know of research or critical analysis about the seemingly aberrant, though consistent, UN voting behavior of China and Russia?

I understand that there are financials involved, as well as a sense of "sticking it to the West", but I continue to scratch my head at the full range of forces involved. Any books or papers you could recommended would be appreciated.

As an aside, is it just that simple that China and Russia will veto anything where the US is perceived as instigating for the vote? Ambassador Churkin is quoted in today's LA Times that Western nations have undermined the chance for a political solution by "pushing the opposition towards power," yet Russia hasn't advocated any potential solution.

I e-mailed a classmate who is working in Moscow and she wasn’t able to lend any particular expertise about Russian/Syrian relations but she said that in Moscow assumed reasons for Russia’s stance in the U.N. include a couple of things which have made their way into the U.S. media (arms contracts, Russia’s discomforts with its own political protests), one which seems to be finding some purchase in the U.S. media (that the U.N. is a good stage for a demonstration of Russia’s continued international relevance in the context of the upcoming elections there), and which I have yet to see in the U.S. media (that Russia’s only Mediterranean port is located in Syria). She also recommended this aggregator to me if it might be of interest (it currently has five Syria–related links up).

[jcustis]

Assad's team is really working all of the angles.

And who would thunk it...the enemy of my enemy could be my friend.

Anonymous...hmmm. (sigh).

[Dayuhan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-official.html

International 'militarisation' in Syria growing closer, warns US official

The international community may be forced to 'militarise' the crisis in Syria unless president Bashar al-Assad stops the onsalught on his people, a senior US official warned on Wednesday.

“We definitely don’t want to militarise the situation. If it’s avoidable we are going to avoid it. But increasingly it looks like it may not be avoidable,” he said.