Duncan Hamilton: Innocent Syrians dying as UN fights internal battle for its own survival

Published on Sunday 12 February 2012 00:00

FOR those at the epicentre of the Syrian crisis, the struggle simply to survive the murderous intent of Assad will matter more than the subtleties of political manoeuvring at the United Nations.

Water, food, sanitation – these are immediate challenges for those under siege. It is, therefore, for the rest of us to wrestle with the bigger question: how is it that in 2012 the global community has failed to evolve a model of international governance capable of preventing the deaths of innocent civilians?

The decision of the Russian and Chinese governments to veto the Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian regime and charting a peaceful transition to a new government was utterly shameful. Before we get lost in the intricacies of this debate, let’s be clear: the effect of that veto was to encourage Bashir al-Assad’s assault on his own people. The outrage of the international community is entirely justified.

The Russians and Chinese appear to have been stung by the criticism. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov proclaimed on Tuesday that he had secured a promise of “cessation of violence from Assad”. Instead, we have seen a dramatic escalation of killing, including the heavy and indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas. Either Assad misled the Russians, or they misled the rest of us.

The Syrian National Council described Lavrov’s visit as “a truly aggressive act”. They know that Russia has chosen the side of Assad against the Syrian people. Russia being accepted as a neutral peace-broker? I think not. The Chinese, too, have hosted a Syrian delegation, insisting that “China is the friend of all Syrian people.” Try telling that to the people of Homs.

But the bigger question remains: what cohesion or unity of purpose can the UN realistically build in the face of aggressively promoted national interests? The problem is not new – think of the League of Nations – but it is once again urgent.

Let’s be clear, for the Russians, their naval base at Tartus matters and there is a desperation to maintain a strategic pre- eminence in Syria, which gives Russia influence in the wider region. There’s also the issue of protecting Russian arms sales to Syria. But this dispute is about much more – it seems to represent a fundamental disagreement over the extent to which the international community has a legitimate interest in the citizens of another state. There is growing evidence that two irreconcilable perspectives have developed.

First, remember that this is the second “double veto” by Russia and China on the issue of Syria in two months. It is viewed in diplomatic circles as a “counter offensive” against a Security Council which twice in the past year has agreed to sanction military intervention – in Libya and also the Ivory Coast.

Both of those interventions took the Russians and Chinese into uncomfortable territory – embracing the concept of an international responsibility to protect civilians threatened by their domestic governments.

Given the regional strife within Russia, the danger of that concept is obvious. The Russian defence of Syrian “sovereignty” is, therefore, really a challenge to the legitimacy of international intervention in the internal affairs of a regime, however brutal.

Russia was further angered by the UN support for Libyan rebels, which it claims mutated into active support for regime change. China, meanwhile, has a long-standing mission to stop the UN intervening in strategically important places such as North Korea, Sudan and Myanmar. Don’t die of shock, therefore, if you see Chinese support for the Russian position on Syria being reciprocated when the Chinese need Russian support on North Korea.

Add to that the obvious incentive for Vladimir Putin (who is seeking re-election as Russian president on an openly anti-western ticket) to give the UN a bloody nose and there you have it – two of the five permanent members of the Security Council apparently hellbent on advocating a different world view from the other three.

Second, consider the reaction of the US and others to the veto. Hillary Clinton responded by announcing the desire to act, regardless of the UN veto. She targeted tightening sanctions and stopping the flow of money and arms into Syria by other means. She hinted at support for French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s suggestion of a “Friends of Syria” group of like-minded nations committed to advancing the Arab League initiative blocked in the Security Council. Clinton put it thus: “Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future.” For a UN determined to assert its legitimacy and primacy as a forum for international dispute resolution, the alarm bells must be ringing.

The UN may still have a role to play here – for example the General Assembly will pass a resolution almost identical to that rejected by the Security Council – albeit the resolution would have no legal force.

Even so, it seems that the Syrian conflict runs the real risk of becoming a proxy for diplomatic arm-wrestling and the assertion of one world view over another. Plainly, we need to have that argument out – a UN which cannot even agree on its fundamental objectives is cruelly weakened. But all the time, more Syrians die.

Related Articles

• William Hague condemns Syria as protestors attack embassies

  WILLIAM Hague accused the Syrian regime of “cold-blooded cynicism” as the reported deaths of 200 people in one of the bloodiest attacks of the uprising fuelled calls for United Nations action.

  0 Comments

• Syria: Pressure mounts on doomed regime

  THE British and American governments yesterday raised the stakes with Bashir al-Assad’s regime in Syria by reducing their diplomatic ties with it, as government troops closed in on rebels in the central city of Homs.

  0 Comments

• Syria: Russian minister calls for peace as bombardment of Homs continues video

  Russia’s foreign minister has told the Syrian president he wants to see peace in the Arab world as the bombardment of Homs continued today.

  1 Comments

Comments

There are 3 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

3

douglas-home rule

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 08:01 AM

Comment removed by moderator

2

john cameron

Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 05:48 AM

Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s veteran Foreign Minister has been condemned out of hand by both Hilary Clinton and William Hague so he cannot be all bad. The multilingual Armenian is a brilliant diplomat who has spent the last thirty years on the international scene and took over from the much admired Igor Ivanov in 2004. Like his predecessor and unlike Clinton and Hague, he is a civil servant rather than a failed politician using the world stage to strut and preen. Given the utter shambles the Anglo-Americans created in Iraq and Afghanistan to say nothing of mission creep in Libya it is actually time a halt was called. It could reasonably be argued it is the West and not Russia that is fanning the flames of sectarian civil war by recklessly backing Syria's armed opposition.

• Report Unsuitable

1

Kobi

Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 01:24 AM

Good piece. However, let's just say for example that this was Israel carrying out attacks on those within its borders, and not Syria. the UN General Assembly would be in session day and night, the Security Council would have plethora of resolutions being thrust before it and agreed, there would be front page headlines in every newspaper every day and every new bulletin would lead with images of what was happening. There would be mobs rioting outside Israeli embassies and consulates and there would be tens of thousands marching every week to protest. Yet hardly any of this is happening for Syria, despite the scale to is repression and murder being far greater than anything Israel has ever done. Perhaps its is the case that if conflict is not on TV then it is not really happening in the eyes of the West, and Israel as an open society permits journalists and TV crews to report, whereas Syria does not. Or more likely, it is because Israel is held to far higher standards than the Arabs who surround her, by the people in this country who are by nature virulently anti-Semitic in their double standards.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.