Javier Solana: Fine words but no action will not help Syria

ON 2 October in Istanbul, Syria’s disparate opposition movements gave the go-ahead for the formation of a Syrian national council. This is the most important step yet taken by the fragmented forces that have been trying since May to lead a peaceful uprising against president Bashar al-Assad.

However, a mere two days after its creation, the embryonic council suffered its first big setback. France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Portugal, in collaboration with the United States, presented a draft resolution before the United Nations Security Council seeking to condemn repression in Syria and put an end to the use of force against civilians.

The draft was a sugarcoated version of an earlier text, proposed last June. This one contained nebulous terms such as “specific measures” or “other options”. It stressed the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Syria, and emphasised the need to resolve the current crisis peacefully, by means of an inclusive political process – and called for a national dialogue led from within the country.

The draft called for a 30-day period to study the options, up from 15 days in the earlier draft.

The object was plain: to gain a Russian, and consequently, a Chinese abstention. But Russia and China vetoed the proposal anyway, and only nine members of the security council voted in favour, with Brazil, India, South Africa, and Lebanon abstaining.

There are three key implications of the security council’s vote. First, violence will increase. Since the protests erupted last March, there have been an estimated 2,700 deaths, more than 10,000 people displaced to Turkey, and thousands more arrested.

The Assad government does not hesitate to fire on civilians, lay siege to cities, or shut off their electricity and water. A few days ago, it was reported that some 10,000 Syrian soldiers had defected, with several hundred joining rival movements such as the Free Syrian Army and the Free Officers Movement.

Unless international protection arrives, a movement that began peacefully risks entering a dangerous phase.

Second, there will be grave consequences for regional security. Syria is a strategic hinge in the Middle East. It has been one of the countries most hostile toward Israel, mainly through its support of Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah. Chaos in Syria would threaten Lebanon’s stability and alter Iran’s geopolitical influence in the region.

Iraq, governed by Shia political forces, also keeps close tabs on Syria’s evolution, as does Turkey.

Finally, the security council vote exposed a clear division within the international community. Among the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, all of which happen to be on the security council – two vetoed and the rest abstained (along with Lebanon). In the case of the resolution on military intervention in Libya, the BRICS decided “to let” Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi be overthrown. Not so with Syria, where none aligned itself with the positions supported by the European Union and the US.

The fact that no agreement has been reached on Syria forces us to reflect on the difficulties ahead for global security.

Of course, there is no “one-size-fits-all” model for intervention, but that does not justify evading our “responsibility to protect” – a fine concept promoted by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and adopted by all UN member states in 2005. Support for the resolution would have weakened Mr Assad’s position, as it would have revealed him as isolated from his traditional allies, Russia and China. It would also have shown the international community to be committed to protecting the Syrian people.

Nobody ever said that the road to stronger global governance would be straight or simple to navigate. But there are no detours: without effective structures of power and a genuine commitment from all, the future does not look promising.

l Javier Solana is the European Union’s former high representative for the common foreign and security policy and a former secretary general of Nato.