Russia and China’s veto Saturday of a United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria dismayed and outraged Westerners. So what are they going to do about it?
The double veto underlined the West’s impotence in the face of butchery and its inability to help those who battle tyranny. It came a day after President Bashar al-Assad’s forces reportedly killed hundreds in Homs. (It was also, almost to the day, the 30th anniversary of Assad’s father’s infamous massacre of tens of thousands in Hama.)
America is “disgusted” by the vetoes, UN Ambassador Susan Rice undiplomatically told the council. But the situation is the inevitable result of relying too much on the Security Council to execute our foreign policy.
Simply put, the Arab League plan that the resolution sought to “fully support” could never pass in a body in which all major world powers are represented. Cooked up by Persian Gulf monarchies and European capitals, it was a blueprint for gradual regime change in Syria.
Not that anyone would admit that, God forbid.
“Some council members argued that the resolution imposed regime change; it said no such thing,” British ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told the Security Council on Saturday.
Really? It didn’t? The Arab League plan called on Assad, before all else, to “delegate” his powers to a deputy, basically telling him to step aside.
And on the day of the vote, top European and American leaders issued statements that made clear their intentions. As President Obama put it: “Assad has no right to lead Syria.”
For too long, Obama and the Europeans have bought their own song and dance. After the previous “neocon” administration, “regime change” was a phrase never again to be uttered in polite society.
But, as they’ve all learned, oppressed people around the globe increasingly cry out for outside help as they try to overthrow tyrannical rulers. In such cases, urging and even aiding regime change is the West’s only moral, logical option.
On the other hand, Russia and China — both somewhat vulnerable to restive populations of their own — would never authorize it. They vow that they won’t again fall for a Western “trick” like they did in the case of Libya, when their Security Council abstentions allowed the overthrow of Moammar Khadafy.
Their abhorrence of regime change doesn’t mean that either country shies from shaping regimes to fit its interests. The Assad clan, for one, was Russia’s puppet for decades, giving Moscow a foothold in a crucial part of the Middle East. (Nor did Russia seek UN approval for its 2008 invasion of Georgia. China, similarly, serves its interests by protecting tyrannies in North Korea and Burma.)
Meanwhile, others are cultivating their own proxies in Syria. Iran aids and abets Assad’s war through its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah. While Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotuglu denies discussing NATO intervention in Syria with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Turkey is already backing Syria’s Islamist Sunni rebels, positioning itself as the next regime’s patron (perhaps in coordination with the Saudis and Qatar).
Israel, too, seeks tacit allies in Syria. It worries what use new leaders there will make of Assad’s chemical- and biological-tipped missiles.
“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,” Clinton said in Bulgaria yesterday.
Let us hope the administration is truly ready to lead, to work with our proxies or even intervene if necessary to influence the post-Assad mess. Because it’s quickly becoming much more crucial to the future of the Middle East and the world than the speeches and votes at Turtle Bay.