UN officials are warning that the 6 month long revolt in Syria is threatening to turn into a civil war. The wave of revolutions that have swept across the Middle East and North Africa have been met with varying degrees of support and intervention from the international community. Weighing into the international community’s calculations are concerns over respect for sovereign borders, establishing international norms that are contrary to domestic policy, traditional and potential spheres of influence, and how actions by the international community must be balanced with larger concerns over regional peace and international security.
China and Russia vetoed a bid in the UN security council that would have been a step towards putting more strict sanctions on Syria. This veto has been widely criticized by the US and the UK. Not long after the veto, Russia and China publically became more critical of the Syrian government. So what is motivating this seemingly contradictory behavior? Are these moves strategic geo-political power assertions? Do these moves simply demonstrate different emphasis on different international norms? It is speculated that China is merely looking to shore up its influence in the Middle East, and Russia’s strategic partnership with Syria, dating back to the Cold War, is playing a role in its actions.
With the international community unable to act meaningfully with respect to the Syrian uprisings, what can the Syrian protestors continue to do? How does the uprising in Syria vary from in Libya? And, why did one warrant military intervention, while the other has not? Does this demonstrate the inefficiency or efficiency of international institutions?
For more information:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/11/china-urges-syria-regime-reforms and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/14/syria-protesters-defections-security-forces .
Interesting questions. I think the Syrian conflict can be resolved more effectively with China and Russia acting on their own rather than through the UN. It is good that they vetoed the imposition of more sanctions. Russia and China have more influence outside the UN in many matters, and have more influence than the UN in many issues, not only in Syrian political reform, but in Sudan as well. These vetoes and the rationale behind them are a clear example that individual state power still trumps international efforts to influence domestic politics even in mid-tier power states such as Syria. China in particular may see its global interests vindicated through solo efforts much more so than through its participation in the UN. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming decades as China rises.
ReplyDelete