Shameful veto by Russia, China

The decision by Russia and China to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria over its crackdown on anti-government protesters is indefensible and a grave insult to the Syrian people who are demanding basic human rights.

Russia has a wonderful opportunity to use its influence to persuade Assad to immediately stop the violence and begin a process of genuine reform- Anthony Manduca

The veto also places Russia and China on the wrong side of the Arab Spring and there are bound to be long-term negative consequences for these countries’ influence in the Arab world.

The resolution was drafted by France, Britain, Germany and Portugal, the four EU countries on the Security Council, and had been watered down to try to avoid Russian and Chinese vetoes, referring to “targeted measures” instead of the word “sanctions” against Syria if the repression continued.

It condemned the “grave and systematic” human rights violations in Syria and demanded an immediate end to the violence and for those responsible to be accountable. The resolution said the Security Council would “consider its options” which could include unspecified “measures” after 30 days.

Nine countries backed the resolution in the 15-member Security Council, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, France, Gabon, Germany, Nigeria, Portugal, the US and Britain, while four abstained, India, South Africa, Brazil and Lebanon. However, Moscow and Beijing still went ahead and vetoed the resolution, showing no concern for the Syria regime’s heavy handed response to the protests, which the UN now says has left at least 2,900 dead.

The fact that India, South Africa, Brazil and Lebanon abstained in the Security Council vote is unfortunate and to a certain extent lessened the impact of the Russian and Chinese veto.

Just imagine the outcry that would have followed the double veto had these four countries voted in favour of the resolution along with the nine other Security Council members.

Lebanon’s abstention is perhaps understandable – Syria unfortunately plays too dominant a role in Lebanese politics – but India, South Africa and Brazil should have known better and as democracies they ought to have voted in favour .

After the vote, the Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the threat of an ultimatum of sanctions against the Syrian authorities was “unacceptable”, even though the word “sanctions” did not appear in the resolution.

He added: “This approach is against the principle of a peaceful settlement of a crisis on the basis of a full Syrian national dialogue.” China’s UN ambassador, Li Bao-dong, said Beijing opposed the idea of “interference” in Syria’s “internal affairs”.

Mr Churkin repeatedly referred to Nato’s military intervention in Libya that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, an operation that Russia had criticised as overstepping its Security Council mandate to protect civilians, even though both Russia and China had not opposed the Libyan resolution at the Security Council.

The Russian Ambassador said his country was concerned that the approval of the resolution against Syria could have led to a Libya-style military intervention there.

I wonder if Mr Churkin fully understands that had it not been for Nato Libya would still be suffering under Gaddafi’s brutal dictatorship today.

Even though the Syrian situation is a complex one – there could be regional consequences if military intervention took place and Syria’s mix of Sunnis, Alawites, Christians and Druze could be problematic in the event of the overthrow of a secular regime – the Russian and Chinese veto can never be justified.

The Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad is now almost certainly beyond reform and has reacted to the protests in the country in a completely unacceptable way.

Unfortunately, the Russia and Chinese veto will only encourage Assad to continue with his crackdown as the UN has proved to be incapable of issuing even the mildest of condemnations of his regime’s brutality. Had the resolution passed, it would have signified the first Security Council action against the Assad regime since the unrest began last March.

Russia has strong economic and defence ties to Syria which go back to the Cold War, and this is certainly one of the main reasons Moscow opposes any hint of action against Damascus. Russia also has a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, its only military facility outside the former Soviet republics.

Russia, therefore, has a wonderful opportunity to use its influence there to persuade Assad to immediately stop the violence and begin a process of genuine reform, if this is at all possible at this late stage. Surely such an approach is better than blindly supporting such a nasty regime?

Despite the veto, the international community should continue to pressure Syria to change course. The US and the EU already have sanctions in place against Syria – which could and should be strengthened – and Turkey is about to do the same.

For the moment, thanks to Russian and Chinese opposition, bilateral sanctions seem to be the only option in dealing with Syria.