I’m not a Middle East expert, nor do I have any insight on back-room dealings at the U.N. I was therefore going to pass on the topic of Syria, and Russia and China’s veto of a UN resolution condemning the current crackdown. However, the post-vote spinning and reaction made me change my mind.

To me, the news here (aside from what’s actually going on in Syria) is the breakdown of civility over this issue. The veto itself by Russia and China was no great surprise, given both nations’ commercial interests in Syria and China’s longstanding foreign policy principle of non-interference. China was also worried that the UN resolution would be the first step on a slippery slope to intervention a la Libya. I think this description in Foreign Policy got it right for the most part:

For Russia, Syria’s dictatorship is its last client left standing in the Middle East, both political and economic since Syria provides a warm seaport and buys Russian weaponry. To watch it fall means ceding the field largely to the U.S. and the EU, and losing revenue. The stakes are indeed high for Russia. For China, the best explanation is inertia; China defines its national interest — apart from its freedom to engage in commerce wherever it can — according to the principle of non-intervention. Its reaction to the Syria situation is like its reaction to every other such situation: everyone should mind his own business, we like things as they are. (h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Let’s face it, having everyone mind its own business is a big deal here in Beijing, both for historical and current reasons, such as what’s going on this week out West.

You may have heard a lot of blather coming from both Western sources and the Chinese diplomatic corp about this vote. I’ll get to the former in a moment, but most of it can be glossed over. The reality of all this is simple: Beijing believes that China’s best interests are served by supporting the Assad government, at least in the short term.

There’s a term for this kind of diplomatic strategy. It’s called realism. The United States practices it, for example, when it supports Saudi Arabia, which maintains domestic policies that most Americans find abhorrent. But hey, oil is important. And let’s not even get into the frequent practice of U.N. members vetoing resolutions on behalf of their allies; how many times has the U.S. blocked U.N. resolutions against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians? (For the record, I’m glad the U.S. did so on a number of those occasions.)

The point is, China had its reasons, even if many other nations do not accept that calculus. Does that mean that the supporters of the U.N. resolution should be uncritical of China’s veto? Certainly not. Proponents of the resolution had a compelling argument on a tough issue and are no doubt frustrated. But this sort of thing happens at the United Nations, and if these countries want the international system to work, they have to understand that after this Syria matter is over and done with, they will still have to work with China, and Russia, on other issues.

Diplomacy, in other words, calls for mutual respect, even on tough battles like this. A vociferous disagreement with China’s vote is fine as long as there is an acknowledgment that it was a matter of perceived national interest. That doesn’t sound idealistic to me, but feel free to call me naive if you wish.

The reason I bring this all up is that I was quite disappointed by some of the comments made by world leaders, particularly their diplomatic corps, in the wake of the U.N. vote. Here’s a sample:

Russia and China “sided with the Syrian regime” by blocking a United Nations resolution against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, [UK Foreign Secretary] William Hague has said.

The foreign secretary responded angrily after a security council resolution proposed by Morocco calling for an immediate end to all violence in Syria was vetoed.

“There was nothing in the draft to warrant opposition,” Mr Hague said.

“How many more need to die before Russia and China allow the UN security council to act?

“Those opposing UN security council action will have to account to the Syrian people for their actions which do nothing to help bring an end to the violence that is ravaging the country.”

That actually wasn’t too bad, although expressing anger isn’t kosher for a diplomat. Also, that bit about answering to the Syrian people sounded quite childish. As to the language of the resolution, I wonder whether the U.S. and UK thought that Russia and China would abstain on this one. After all, some of the offending language of earlier drafts had been removed. Perhaps the vetoes were somewhat unexpected and therefore the underlying cause of these vituperative outbursts.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the veto a “travesty” while traveling through Europe this weekend, saying China and Russia “bear full responsibility for protecting the brutal regime in Damascus.”

“The fact that Russia and China chose to align themselves up with a dictator that is on his last legs, rather than the people of Syria, rather than the people of the Middle East, rather than the principled views of the rest of the international community, was indeed disgusting and shameful,” [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan] Rice said in an interview on MSNBC.

This is just inexcusable for a career diplomat, and I’m amazed that a pro like Rice would use a word like “disgusting” to characterize a vote like this. The reason why they hold votes in the U.N. is that nations have different interests, and that has to be respected, even if the underlying issue is emotional and involves bloodshed.

Beijing has a long memory. Call me crazy, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for the U.S. to call China’s foreign policy “disgusting.”

I’m going to have to side with this reaction:

“Some of the voices heard in the West with evaluations of the results of the vote in the U.N. Security Council on the Syria resolution sound, I would say, improper, somewhere on the verge of hysteria,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, according to wire reports from Moscow.

If the voices in question are diplomats, they need to learn how to control themselves and rein in those excited utterances. Let other members of the government, as well as commentators, bloggers, and academics, rail against these votes and what this will mean to the people of Syria.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: realism, Syria, United Nations