Why Russia Vetoed The Resolution Against Syria
Published by Ashwath Komath on February 8, 2012 in International Relations-
0
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
Russia’s veto to a resolution that could have possibly contained the violence in Syria comes as a shock to many in the international community.
The Syrian uprising has been going for almost a year now. By now, one would think that Syrians would have given up their quest for regime change and instituting basic human rights and facilities for its people. However, the protests have raged on.
This is not to say that the Syrian government has softened its stand. In fact, as the months passed, its actions intensified against the protesters. The death toll of protesting Syrians is estimated at around 7,200 by the United Nations. The Syrian government, led by Bashar Al Assad, liberally used tanks, artillery and snipers in order to suppress the protests. At a certain point in time, the Syrian Navy was used in order to shell the port city of Latakia and hit protesters. The situation has worsened to such a state that there has been an exodus of defectors from the Syrian Armed Forces which have regrouped in the border with Turkey to form the Free Syrian Army in order to fight the regime forces and topple it.
The Syrian National Council is the acting opposition and it is head-quartered in Turkey as of now. It is a government in exile and it would serve as an alternative in the event of the regime collapsing.
Image via Wikipedia
The Arab League had asked Bashar Al Assad to stop all violence against protesters and begin democratic reforms. He refused to comply and violence just multiplied. The Arab League proposed a peace plan which would eventually lead to a safe exit of Bashar Al Assad however, it called for an end to hostilities and it even set a deadline for the same. The violence couldn’t stop and the Arab League suspended its membership from the organization. When violence did not stop even there, the Arab League imposed sanctions on Syria.
The Arab League also sent a team of observers in order to monitor the violence in Syria. Under the nose of this mission, the Syrian regime killed around 250 people in places like Hama, Dara’a and Homs, where the violence has been the strongest. With no power to change circumstances and frustration, the observers resigned and the mission had to be withdrawn. At such a point, the Arab League asked for foreign intervention in order to protect the people of Syria.
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia
The United Nations Security Council met with the purpose of adopting a resolution which would possibly bring violence to an end.
Nobody would imagine to oppose a resolution which basically aimed to stop further violence in Syria. But much to the disappointment of the international community, the resolution was vetoed by Russia and China. The resolution, proposed by the Arab League had made demands that all hostilities be stopped, all persons detained arbitrarily be released and the Syrian government guarantee the freedom to conduct demonstrations.
While it was in a way understandable for China to veto the resolution considering the fact that the Syrian scenario is in a way a mirror image to China’s own political system and also because China has always supported police states and other repressive regimes alike.
But it was surprising to see Russia oppose the resolution. But Russia had its reasons, which you must understand carefully before conclusions can be drawn.
First of all, Russia has a lot of interests in Syria. Russia and Syria’s relationship goes back a long way when the Soviet Union existed. Russia has secured billions of dollars worth of contracts with the Syrian government for arms and even to develop the port of Latakia. Russia has always supported Syria in the international arenas and has made Syria its access to the middle east.
Russia first of all is completely opposed to the idea of a western intervention in Syria like how it happened in Libya. However, the Arab League proposal had absolutely no mention of a foreign intervention and NATO had made it very clear with a statement after the completion of its mission in Libya that NATO will NOT intervene in Syria.
Russia also believes that complete regime change is a recipe for disaster. Russia wants regime change to happen in stages like a controlled demolition. In a way, there is merit to Russia’s argument.
If change happens to quickly, there is going to be a lot of problems in the future. That is exactly what went wrong in Libya, the post-revolution planning of the state was miserable because of the fact that everything was too quick and nobody was thinking of nation-building or anything of that sort. Nobody decided jurisdictions, nobody knew how the politics in the country would play out, nobody thought of how power would be distributed and many other things were just left to happen on its own.
As a result, Libya today is in a state of chaos. Recently, pro-Gaddafi loyalists took over Bani Walid. There has been reports of clashes between armed groups who once fought together to oppose Gaddafi. Security is a nightmare as of now. Arms are in circulation like never before with people having no faith in a government. Nobody knows when elections are going to take place.
Image via Wikipedia
Even if one believes that this is a good argument against the passing of the revolution, this cannot be the sole reason to reject the resolution outright considering the fact that the main objective of the resolution was to end all violence. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov went to Damascus on 7th February in order to get an assurance from Bashar Al Assad to stop all violence. However, Assad’s word means nothing because he had made similar promises to the Arab League and he miserably failed in stopping violence.
And considering the fact that Russia has not proposed any other solutions in order to prevent the violence from escalating further, it is not fair on Russia’s part to veto the resolution and bringing it to a halt.
Copyright © 2012 Ashwath Komath
