Eyes on the Prize

On February 4th, China and Russia vetoed the UN security council resolution for the Syrian president to step down and to be condemned for his actions against the Syrian people. The draft for interference could not go through because the vote was not unanimous, although thirteen out of fifteen members of the council had voted to step in. Given the severe crisis and brewing civil conflict in Syria, China and Russia were widely condemned for their choice. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and William Hague (foreign secretary) openly announced that to object to the draft, which did not authorize military action or impose sanctions, was to be against the Syrian people. More than 2000 people have died since the last draft resolution was shot down by the same two countries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/04/assad-obama-resign-un-resolution). It is clear that China and Russia are not unaware of the blood-soaked soils of Syria; thus, one must question why they have vetoed the UN security council.


One explanation is that China and Russia "fear a Western-engineered leadership change just six months after Western airstrikes" aided in Libya (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/04/world/la-fg-syria-violence-20120205) . In all cases where Westerners were the force behind the democratic movement, China and Russia have come out on the losing side. In particular, previous Serbian, Ukrainian, and Georgian revolutions in which pro-Russia leaders were removed have caused Russia see these as US attempts for power; feeling slighted by the lack of Western interests in Chinese/Russian interests, they instigated their veto powers within the UN. A more specific example: Russia in particular has been vocal in proclaiming that it felt tricked by UNSC Resolution 1973 on Libya, which led to a sustained NATO bombing campaign in support of the uprising against Muammar Qaddafi (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0204/After-massacre-in-Syria-Russia-and-China-veto-UN-resolution)

Another explanation comes from recent Chinese-Russian aspirations to rise to the top; while the West has steadily declined in this recession, China and Russia are keen to grasp at a spot higher up than what the West is currently maintaining. This means non-interference, in order to build international relations and economic advantages. The dictatorial regimes in Syria and other countries are aware that China and Russia will not press them on human rights, as their own human rights records are sullied. Not only would it be damaging to Russia and China to topple the Syrian regime, China and Russia would de-legitimize their own governments in doing so. Russia and China are heavily invested in these regimes. Ergo, they will do anything to keep this position of power.

In addition, China and Russia have crushed all protests for democracy within their respective regions, believing that instability represents a threat. China sees demonstrations as a threat against their newly strong nation and Russia believes that it is protests that have held them back from being a leader on the world stage. If the demonstrations in Syria work, this would prove that they could also work in China and Russia (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/04/world/la-fg-syria-violence-20120205).

What China and Russia actually said is very different from what I've stated above. According to Russia, Russia would only support a resolution that insisted on armed intervention or no regime change at all. They also asked for Syrian opposition to distance themselves from violent resistance groups. China says that they support peace in the Arab region and all efforts consistent with UN charters and principles. This reluctance to agree to the draft is causing problems for them with other countries, specifically, the Arab world itself. These two countries may be forced to participate in humanitarian efforts overseas due to their growing business world but that day has not come (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577222891820566360.html)