China, Russia, and Syria

Our discussion on Tuesday about Syria and the threat of possible nuclear weapons made me open my eyes to the possibilities of American intervention under the pretense of the United Nations. However, the problem arose that China and Russia may not allow this to happen and that they have blocked intervention because they don't want the US or Britain to gain power there or influence. We also explained that Syrians might see the intervention as a ploy to westernize them and Pan-Arab-ism might arise as the surrounding lands support those who are being "invaded".

                                                                                    

In one article from the Ethiopian Review, http://www.ethiopianreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35653&start=0&sid=d1e34387ec98b043b4890da78d260dd9 the author relays the given facts about the two sides and the background information to help the reader. First, from the view of the UN and the United States, the Syrian resolution was a way to express support for the Arab league proposal that would call for the Syrian President Bashar al Assad to step down from power.

                                                                    

However, both China and Russia vetoed the resolution and the US did not take it as lightly. The fact that both regimes veto the resolution shows that the relationship between the two marks the emergence of prohibition on Syria and the lands beyond. Russia did send the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, to Damascus to talk with Syrian leadership. And China and Russia seem justified in assuming suspicions of the policies because of how the intervention in Libya went. The UN intervened on the threat of mass murder of their enemies and they interpret that as acting on the basis of fear. Their view is that there should not be intervention based solely on suspicion of intent. This could be the preface to more aggressive resolutions to come and thus they do not want for there to be a precedent for the Western world to work off of; it sets a “permanent principle of international law that they oppose”.

Learning this enlarges my understanding of the situation and I feel more able to make an informed decision as to why I side with the group I do and how I can weigh the pros and cons in relation to each other. In another article, I examined the responses of other countries to whatever is going on in Syria and China and Russia. The Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, condemns Russia and China for vetoing the legislation. In translation, the King leaves us with a few words: “The world is ruled by brains by justice, by morals and by fairness.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/world/middleeast/in-rare-blunt-speech-saudi-king-criticizes-syria-vetoes.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=russia%20and%20china,%20syria&st=cse).

The reasons that Russia and China give for why they didn’t allow the resolution to happen, proves sound as does the argument for why the UN and specifically the United States want to get in there and help those people like.