For the second time in several months, Russia and China have vetoed a UNSC resolution concerning Syria. The double veto last Saturday especially irritated the U.S. and European leaders because they thought that the Arab League's proposal had been revised several times to meet Russia's demands. Russia argued that the Western states had rushed the vote, despite its request to wait until after its diplomatic envoys visit Damascus on Tuesday. Both the West and Russia have reasons to maintain this bizarre diplomatic faceoff, but the true reasons are not necessarily the stated ones.
Russia's hardline position must be understood in the context
of its internal and regional politics. The same can be said about the Arab League's
proposal, which called on Assad to step down. Recent history, too, plays a
major role in this clash between Russia and the U.S., a replay of the Cold War
Era rhetoric.
Importantly, the Russian leadership may face unrest this
March if the elections there return Putin to the presidency and his opposition
rejects those results. The U.S. has already gone on record supporting Russian
protesters. Russia does not want the Arab Spring exported to its streets, and
they believe that saving the Syrian regime will be a test of their ability to
manage similar crises.
The uprising in Syria
is significant for Saudi Arabia, a country eager to weaken Iran. For this
reason, Saudi Arabia, as well as Qatar, took leading roles in shaping the
political and military aspects of this crisis. The Gulf States' media coverage
of the Syrian crisis fails to refer to violent armed groups. Russia, on the
other hand, insists that armed groups should take the blame for the increased
violence. Syrian state-controlled media blames most of the deaths on armed
groups (which it calls terrorists). Independent journalists, most recently a
crew from a Lebanese news outlet--al-Akhbar, described several border
towns as being as militarized "forward bases." The Syrian uprising, initially peaceful,
has now been hijacked by Salafi militants who are financed and armed by Saudi
Arabia via Lebanon.
Saudi involvement,
however, did more than sponsor armed rebel factions. It awakened Russia's
dormant--but not forgotten--memory of the Saudi-American alliance that created
the Mujahidin networks in Afghanistan, which in turn defeated the Soviet Union.
The Saudi role in the Syrian crisis is eerily similar to the one they played in
Afghanistan. Russia, the heir of the Soviet Union, does not want to repeat
history and lose its long alliance with Bashar Assad--its most reliable
international relationship in a critical region. Russia has decided it must challenge
the replication of the Soviet-Afghanistan scenario. Russia has insisted on four
demands before it will support any UNSC resolution:
1: No UNSC resolution authorizing a regime change in Syria.
2. No UNSC resolution authorizing military intervention in
Syria.
3. No UNSC resolution banning arms sale to Syria.
4. No UNSC resolution condemning the Syrian regime's
violence without condemning the violence perpetrated by the armed groups.
These are Russia's red lines. Kremlin leaders are convinced
that Saudi Arabia is arming ultra-conservative groups and funneling money and
weapons into Syria through its borders with Lebanon and Turkey. Some observers
have concluded that Russia has already signaled to Assad that he should use
military force to clear the towns. On Tuesday, the Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov and the head of the Russian foreign intelligence visited Assad to
demonstrate their support, and insisted that armed groups should be held
responsible for the violence against civilians and government security forces.
The U.S. on the other hand, is mulling the idea of arming
opposition groups. On Tuesday, John McCain, ranking member on the Senate Armed
Services Committee said that "we should start considering all options,
including arming the opposition." The Obama administration is "not considering
that step right now," according to White House spokesman Jay Carney.
Instead, the administration is "exploring the possibility of providing
humanitarian aid to Syrians." Although the White House played down the
suggestion, its lack of a comprehensive strategy for Syria leaves the
initiative in the hands of regional powers such as Saudi Arabia--which is
thought to be already arming its favorite groups.
Clearly, the Syrian crisis is now turning into a regional
and international turf war. The Saudis are eager to use Syria to settle the
score with Iran. The United States is determined to see Iran further isolated.
Russia refuses to lose its historical ally, Syria. The Muslim Brethren are
becoming political opportunists. And the Syrian people are suffering as their
government commences what it calls "decisive military action." Should this
conflict become more significantly militarized, the Syrian people's hope for
representative governance will evaporate in the heat of a bloody civil strife
fueled by proxy war. The United States in particular ought to be careful
pursuing another clandestine military partnership with the Saudis. The last
time it did so, it produced al-Qaeda.
- Photos of Syrian armed groups are
courtesy of al-Akhbar.
_____________________
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
