5 February 2012 — China Matters
What went down at the UN:
As a riposte to the Arab League initiated, US/EU backed ‘Assad must step down’ resolution, Russia proposed a resolution calling on both sides to pull back forces and negotiate.
Pretty reasonable proposal. But reasonableness is not part of the program on Syria.
Instead, a Security Council vote was called on the West’s proposal, even though everyone knew it was headed for a veto.
Not just as a gratifying piece of ‘moral outrage theater’ designed to embarrass the Russians and Chinese.
The Gulf and Western powers wanted to advertise, no, make that provoke, a failure at the United Nations.
They got it when Russia and China, as promised, vetoed a resolution they considered one-sided.
Even though the resolution had been advertised as precluding armed intervention, i.e. so toothless as to be meaningless, it was paradoxically trumpeted as ‘the last chance’ for peace.
What it really means is that, with the UN rejected as a suitable venue for great power diplomacy, it’s open season on Syria.
Time to crank up another extra-UN ‘coalition of the willing’ (Iraq-speak) or ‘contact group on Syria’ (Libya-speak). In fact, the process has already started.
Basically, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, Turkey whoever can now meddle in Syria with cash and arms to their heart’s content.
My personal feeling: the United States is pushing regime collapse in Syria (I’m not even going to dignify the process with ‘regime change’) as a consolation prize to the Gulf states for the US not going all out to start a war with Iran. Assad’s scalp on the GCC’s belt will have to do for now.
A while back, I wrote that the people’s revolution in Syria had failed; and the rebellion would now have to make do with whatever nation the GCC, the US, the EU, and Turkey decide to give them.
I’ve got a feeling that, beyond the full-time insurrectionists and propagandists of the SNC, the people of Syria are not going to be happy with the increasingly militarized, bloody, and divisive rebellion executed in their name, accompanied by the high-minded bleating of the neo-liberal interventionists.
To me, that’s ‘disgusting’ and a ‘travesty’