Pondering the Bahrain Conundrum and the Demise of Syria

The Syrian Veto: China,Russia and the Arab Spring
7 March, 2012 – Middle East Futures Network

It all began on March 15 2011 when protestors, inflamed by the arrest of a group of teenagers and inspired by the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan people, took their desire for freedom and justice to the streets of Daraa in southwest Syria, and started the deadliest episode of the Arab Spring. Despite President Assad’s confident assurance to the world that Sham was immune from anti-Government protests, what began in Daraa kick-started Syria’s descent into a civil war; a war that seems unstoppable as it approaches its first anniversary and marks the end of a chaotic year in Syrian history.

Given the geostrategic importance of Syria and Assad’s popularity and carefully constructed image as a reformer, there was early optimism inside and outside Syria over his willingness and capability to calm the situation through the initiation of meaningful reforms. As a matter of fact, there were commentators who believed that the Arab Spring had provided the reform-minded, Western-educated Bashar with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity finally to unleash a series of socio-political reforms, thereby weakening the more conservative members of his inner circle and encourage their early retirements.

Two months into the uprising, there emerged a sudden change in the stance of regional and extra-regional actors towards Syria led by Turkey. It was in this context of rising tensions that Syria lost its Arab League membership; GCC states, Britain, France, and the US closed their embassies; more economic sanctions were imposed by the EU, the US, and the Arab League, which also sent a monitoring mission to Syria that had two broad outcomes: embarrassment for the League, and the departure of Syrian ambassadors from the GCC. In response, Syria’s allies – namely, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, and China – increased their public backing of the Syrian regime, helping to create a mini Cold War situation in the Levant; a situation that acquired a whole new dimension when China and Russia vetoed a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution on Syria for the second time, claiming that it was unbalanced and unreasonable.

Hillary Clinton described China and Russia’s veto as a ‘travesty’; the Turkish Prime Minster called it a ‘fiasco’, and various Arab regimes accused Beijing and Moscow of licensing more killing in Syria. Russia and China, however, dismissed all these accusations and justified their veto as an attempt to seek ‘peaceful settlement of the chronic Syrian crisis’. Hence, digging beneath the surface and behind the veil of what has become a ‘war of rhetoric’, it is useful to ask why Beijing and Moscow, which have typically tried to align their policies with regional states/blocks, have disregarded and antagonised the Arab League by lending their backing to Mr. Assad, and how disruptive their support and indeed cooperation is to the international community’s efforts to end the violence in Syria.

For both Russia and China, and indeed the other members of the BRICs, NATO’s intervention in Libya was a wakeup call. As is evident in their remarks during the last meeting of BRICs leaders in 2011, the UN-sanctioned intervention in Libya was less of a humanitarian operation and more of a well thought out, Western-engineered strategy of regime change in order to perpetuate Western dominance over the entire MENA. As such, Chinese and Russian rationale today is that they no longer want the UN to be involved in further cases of ‘regime change’. Put differently, they fear that the Libyan campaign has set up a precedent for intervention based on human rights, and this, needless to say, has raised red flags in Beijing and Moscow at a time of leadership change/elections and rising domestic discontent and public protests in both countries. …more