News analysis
Syria and the UN
Libya bitten, Syria shy
Jan 31st 2012, 20:59 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK
IN 2005 all the world's countries signed up, in theory, to a new norm called the "responsibility to protect". In short, the idea is that a government is sovereign because it protects its people. When it cannot do so—or worse, is the perpetrator of mass violence against its own—the responsibility to protect them may devolve to the international community. For a while, this norm was mostly airy, referred to when other countries or United Nations diplomats got involved to stop violence in its earliest phases. But some construe the "responsibility to protect" as a mandate for "liberal interventionism": the right of outside countries to step in militarily when abuses get serious enough.
Now outsiders are clamouring to do something serious about Syria. No one is pushing a military intervention—not even the Western countries sounding the harshest notes about Bashar Assad, Syria's dictator. But two of the veto-wielding members of the Security Council, China and particularly Russia, feel that the "responsibility to protect" has already gone far enough, thank you very much. Last year, they signed on to a resolution that authorised "all necessary means" to protect Libyan civilians from Muammar Qaddafi. That intervention became a NATO-led air war against Libya's regime, and ended with Qaddafi's bloody death at the hands of the rebels. The Russians felt duped.
This is behind the Russian reticence, this week, to sign on to a draft resolution that would have Mr Assad delegate power to his deputy. This is despite strong support not only from a unified West, but from the Arab League, which has suspended Syria. The assertiveness of the league, once a do-nothing talking shop for tyrants, has been striking. It suspended its observer mission in Syria because of threats to its personnel and inability to do a proper job monitoring. Observers hope that a personal briefing by league representatives about the bloodshed will sway the recalcitrant Security Council members.
But the Russians, citing Syria's sovereignty, have shown no sign of budging (which suits the Chinese, who do not like vetoing resolutions alone). The frustrated other members of the 15-seat council are still trying to craft a resolution everyone can agree to. But if they cannot, they have hinted that they will force a vote anyway, to get a Russian veto on the record at least. For those dying in Syria, the manoeuvring must seem absurdly abstract, and Russia's desire for "a peaceful settlement without foreign intervention and with respect to the sovereignty of Syria" somewhere between cynical and downright ridiculous.
(Photo credit: AFP)
In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th- and 17th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered battles, disasters, debates and sensational trials
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Daily chart: The German motor
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Re: Libya and Syria, it is more accurate to say: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Zhuganov does not exist in reality. Zhirnovsky is a puppet of Putin. It is Putin who is again asserting to restore the prestige of Russia, which had a lot of beating after the fall of Yugoslavia, and Libya. If Syria will fall, followed by Algeria, there is nothing left for Russia in the world scene; it will be reduced to Finland with nuclear weapons.
However, after the fall of two more progressive Muslim states, it will be the turn for Russia. Russia has to give up the Muslim areas to the Muslim fanatics, about 40 percent of the country in the south, and also Syberia to China and USA.
This is the real dream of Brezhizhinsky, who
With Russia's aging and declining population it will lose all territory east of Urals to China mostly, maybe some to USA and Japan. It's south will go all muslim and Independent. What will be left is just another Has Been European country.
True, the Arab League is a do-nothing talking shop for tyrants. But if the UN continue the practice of attacking it member states every time the liberal whinnies of the world don't like what the real life is, it will become a do-dirty-work-for-our-bastards workshop.
UN is not world government. If it were, it should bear responsibility not only for toppling regimes they don't like, but for everything that's going on in the countries they attacked after their intervention. They have no mandate for neither.
If having on percent of the Libyan population killed in an intervention can be defended as "Responsibility to Protect" anything can. Humanitarian mass murder would be a better description.
In a situation like Syria the best way to start looking for a solution is negotiation. But the SNC refuses to negotiate and Washington is supporting them with that. As long as Washington refuses to do the most basic thing that is needed to get a solution - pressing the SNC to negotiate - it has no right to make demands on anyone else.
"Russia's desire for "a peaceful settlement without foreign intervention and with respect to the sovereignty of Syria" somewhere between cynical and downright ridiculous". Do not you think that it is more cynical and ridiculous that NATO members allied with Rich Gulf dictatorships lead a regional policy for regime changes wherever that meets their interests. Do you really care about the Syrians, or it is just the geopolitics: you want to favor Israel even more by creating a civil war in Syria, while the authoritarian families that rules the GCC Sheikdoms want to bring a Sunni regime as part of their power conflict with Iran. The whole game is cynical and all parties share the same dirtiness.
The Arab league comprise a group of in-effete, corrupt and autocratic Wahhabi interests. These Wahhabi controls the rich oil states in the Saudi and Gulf region, doing very little except either to shake their balls in the halls of London, Paris and NY or to sponsor and fund Jihadi activities in all parts of the World including the Great Madrassahs of the West.
Typical Economist bias writing. Western powers can never be trusted for their colonial instincts of using military
to solve disputes.The important powers like India, Brazil are also against the resolution drafted essentially by
the West under cover of Arab League.Yes the international community has the obligation to protect but not the right to participate in the internal politics. What the West did in Libya will never be forgotten, it showed their true colors.
Syria is clearly a Civil War Case arising amoungst other reasons as tribal rivalry, a proxy fight between Sunnis
and Shites. Arab league is overwhelming Sunnis and ever fearful and resentful of Shites represented in the form of Iran. The resolution proposed does not reflect realities of a growing Civil War with one side actively and
materially supported by leading Sunni members of the Arab League,
If experience is anything to go by, the Salafi offshoots like the Al Qaeda, Taliban etc. have proven to be all-weather allies of the Hegemon.
The situation that you describe is what Assad aims to create, and the longer that he is allowed to do do will only lead to the scenario you describe...and as for Russia..talking about non interference while only 3 years ago we all remmber their invasion of Georgia under the guise of a genocide being committed..I think Assad long ago surpassed anything Georgia did..disgusting hypocracy form Russia
If Russia vetoes, will the West contemplate boycotting the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, making it two successive Olympics held in Russian soil to be boycotted en masse in a row?
Russia's desire for "a peaceful settlement without foreign intervention ... LOL. The same way that Asad runs a criminal regime backed by oppression, the same goes for Russia and Sputum aka Putum. So how can Russia condemn Syria for exactly what Russia is?
The asad regime will die a slow painful death as saudi sunnis ship in arms while americans (and Israelis) supply the logistics. The complication is iran. Both the americans, saudis and Israelis see this as the opportunity of a life time to kill two birds with one compleyte stoning of asad. The plan is to whip up virulent hatred of asad and his supporters which include Iran, hizboulah, hamas and other shietes everywhere.
Look for a blood bath when sunnis take revenge on asad and his shaba militants and iranian supporters. when this is all over Israel will give the golan back to the syrian opposition. they'll need plenty of space to bury all the bodies.
and make peace with Isreal and stop all the lies the Syrians and arabs were fed for the last 65 years.
thanks 666 , i hope you are right.
What is wrong with the world? We have seen the so called arab spring last year. Although some countries seemed stable right now, countries like Libya and Egypt are still in turmoil, people are dying, children and mothers are suffering. But still, the west is trying to creat another problem in syria,is there no other way to solve problems than self interest and greed? Cold war style politics is still going on the west supports then china and russia Veto and the vice vera.
Is the world has no option than these traditional killing and abusing politics? Is there no other way we make the world a better place?
The fact is on syria is the safety of Isreal.Never try to redicule us. Although i dont personaly support the policies of the Bath Party, i think there is a better way to solve the problem than war and distruction.
|Please let us stop openning new wars for the seek of money and politics. We are the World and lets make the world a better place!
Many neocons back home loath that the Hegemon has not acted unilaterally to intervene and have to get legitimacy from the likes like Putin.
What is wrong with the Arab league's sponsored delegation of Responsibility to protect civilians to Nato, some neocon may wonder with all honesty?? Yet we just have to look at the behaviour of the Hegemon to protect the Salafi civilians in places like Syria, as compared to the plight of Shiite civilians crushed by the Wabhabi tanks in places like Bahrain.
After Syria,we can help the Iranians escape the clutches of the theocracy in Iran,then we can help the civilian government in Pakistan escape the stranglehold of its own armed forces,then Russia from Putin's cabal,and all those Arabs from their Monarchies,the Europeans from the Euro.Who knows we could even consider liberating the Palestinians from the Israeli yoke!There is enough scope for resposibility to protect to keep the military-industrial complex in business for years to come.President Eisenhower knew what he was talking about.
Economist,
What is the realpolitk behind Russian China’s reluctance to act? Do they do that much business with Syria. And to your credit, the “Do nothing Arab league” is certainly and accurate description of tyrants.
After Syria, the Arab League will press for Responsibility to protect their Boko-Haram bros & civilians in Nigeria from the trigger happy Goodluck in UN security council. And that the crony Jonathan Goodluck will have to go.
Of course greased by the Oil of the Wahhabi, the braying Ugly American lady will take on herself to protest that the Goodluck government has lost legitimacy by putting down the insurgency and kill his own people.
It's a civil war, outsiders should either stay out, or condemn both side's belligerence and atrocities.
I’ll not sign under what I don’t know. Better check on hahaped
I guess we'll just have to do this the old-fashioned way: with secret arms sales and CIA training on the down-low...
Another of the 9/11 attacks - Act II is not inconceivable and should not be too far away with the short-sight policy of the Obama regime.
This is what is already happening and it's why the Russians won't sign. The Russians have no love for underhanded US & Isreali intervention in their ally's affairs.
Quote
The assertiveness of the league, once a do-nothing talking shop for tyrants, has been striking.
End quote
Of course it is still a talking shop for tyrants. The tyrants have fallen out. It would be interesting to get some analysis of what the Saudis feel they can gain by breaking with Assad.
My personal assumption is that they simply calculate he is done for, and want to get on the winning side of the issue. Is there any more substantial information on the subject?
The tyrants are eager to see the last secular Arab government fall. They want another religiously ruled country. I am not sure why Arab League is given a voice in this issue at all. Let them talk as much as they want, but why does the West listen to the most authoritative regimes of all??
The tyrants are eager to see the last secular Arab government fall. They want another religiously ruled country. I am not sure why Arab League is given a voice in this issue at all. Let them talk as much as they want, but why does the West listen to the most authoritative regimes of all??
..."which suits the Chinese, who do not like vetoing resolutions alone."
No, it wouldn't look good if Russia didn't join China's veto. Who knows, China might appear to the outside world that it tolerates tyrants. Other countries might begin to suspect the Chinese commit atrocities to their own people... or even suspect that Tiananmen 1989 wasn't the work of rogue terrorists after all.
It is sad that the Chinese, who are blemished with gross human rights abuses of their own, have perpetual veto power. It is farcical they care about "saving face" when the world recognizes how often they (and the Russians) fail to condemn atrocities - even veto resolutions of condemnation - because they fear the microscope will be turned yet again on themselves.
Question: Of the 5 veto wielding permanent members of the security council, which has vetoed the most resolutions? Look it up Independant. I guarentee you will be surprised when you learn the answer. Yes, more than China and Russia/USSR combined!! Who is it?
Answer to hyropic: Two wrongs do not a right make. Just because the U.S. exercises its veto power (often for the sake of its ally Israel...and at the cost of alienating itself from the many anti-Israeli States), do you believe this justifies China's veto? Are you in favor of stifling such resolutions by veto power? The tone of your response sounds as though you defend China's veto in this instance. Do you?
Like the Red men, some of these sleepy countries have woken out from the slumber that the Hegemon talks with forked tongues.
makes sense till the last sentence
Sovereignty as a principle is meant to defend the will of the people against outside powers. When a country's government doesn't even represent the will of the people, what's the point of invoking sovereignty? (Of course there's such a thing as going too far the other way like what George W. Bush tried, but that's another matter.)
The point of invoking sovereignty is that what is going on in an independent country is none of the UN or... he-he-he... so called international community's business.
UN is not world's government because, to use your own argument, it doesn't represent the humanity's will, among other disqualifiers.
And "international community" simply does not exist. It is non sequitur figure of speech, nothing more.
Your opinion writer writes and sounds well until the last sentence. Those who are dying in Syria are either rebels aided and abetted by the USA/GCC/Saudis with gleeful partner Israel, or the group on the other side who still are loyal and provably so, to Mr. Assad. Russia is the only player who knows the real situation from reporters and academics living in Syria and is doing the right thing. Syria is the beginning of the moves against Iran/Hezbollah and is being promoted on lies served up to and by Western media. There was hardly an innocent Syrian Arab Spring protestor - as the Sunni side of what so far is a civil war so quickly taken over by Saudi money and US long run power/resource intentions.
My name is John Eadie, by the way, not guest-liniwwj %^) Actually, good commenting interaction by the Economist site.
And let me guess, you are the cultural attache in the Syrian embassy, right?
No Sir. A retired gent in the West End of Vancouver BC - well educated, success-then-failure-in-business guy. Technical, Literary, Political.
The Evil we have to deal with now, is the Carter etc. doctrine that let's the USA do anything it damn well pleases to keep the oil flowing (AND BURNING) in America. I am Green.
John, you say Assad's loyalists prove their convictions dying for him. What is the proof of the other conspiracy theory, involving USA/GCC/Saudis plus their gleeful sidekick?
Except your unshakable belief in it, that is.
And something else: how much oil does the US import from Syria?
(A clue: Until oil prices jumped in the early 1970s, Syria earned more from the international pipelines that crossed its territory than from domestic oil production.)
Assad's support, when you look seriously at this, is unassailable. The other 'conspiracy' theory is supported by exactly what the "Free" guys look like, and what their home countries are, where they come from. Whether they are good guys. Get reports from folks on the ground who can talk to them. Not hard. The US does not have any direct oil connection with Syria, of course. It's the messing with Iran's political friend, in order to eventually control Iran's oil, which is currently independant, which is at stake. As if you didn't know, cunningly wrongly named poster.
Twaddle, John, pure twaddle.
Iran's oil is now totally controlled through sanctions, and there is nothing Syria can, tries, or has to do with it either way.
And - since you mentioned it - how much Iranian oil does or did the US import?
But ple-e-e-ease, don't start the usual greenie twaddle, wouldya?
Your facts are wrong which makes your implied conclusions wrong. China and India are still buying lots of Iranian oil, as are others. Syria is politically and religiously connected to Iran - they are allies so no, it is not the oil that they are after in Syria. It is the Alewite (Shia) political control that they (US/Saudis/Israelis) want to topple. As a first step to Iran. They want to destablize Hamas and Hezbollah as a precursor. The US does not import Iranian oil, or very much, true - but it is the control of Iranian oil by multinational corporations based in the US/UK that they are after. It is and has been the American way since WWII.
And all this is very stupid because of climate change, which is very real. Perhaps though, you don't care about the continuation of our kind of life on this planet, but that nearly inevitable fact is the reason that these energy wars are really quite evil. Calling this concern a childish name does not make it so.
Libya Act II. The Wahhabi and Zionists of the World Unite for this moment of time.