Chris Doucouliagos of Deakin University and Scott Lucas of the University of Birmingham write for The Conversation:
Since the start of Syria’s uprising in March 2011, Russia has vetoed 12 UN Security Council resolutions concerning the conflict. Among other things, these resolutions covered human rights violations, indiscriminate aerial bombing, the use of force against civilians, toxic chemical weapons, and calls for a meaningful ceasefire.
Russia’s behaviour at the Security Council is not motivated by humanitarian concerns. Its vetoes have provided political cover for the Assad regime, protected Moscow’s strategic interests and arms deals with the Syrian state, and obstructed UN peacekeeping. They’ve helped shift the locus of peace talks from a UN-backed process in Geneva to a Russian-led one in Astana. And they’ve had real and dire consequences for the people of Syria.
The Syrian conflict has claimed more than 500,000 lives, turned millions of people into refugees, and all but destroyed the country. While all sides have contributed to this catastrophe, the Assad regime in particular has made repression, brutality, and destruction its signature tactics – and Russia has chosen to protect it.
Some seem resigned to dismiss this behaviour as everyday international politicking. Emily Thornberry, the shadow Foreign Secretary of the UK’s opposition Labour Party, recently offered an excuse: “People will always block resolutions. If you look at the number of resolutions America has blocked, I mean that’s the way of politics.”
This is nothing more than idle whataboutism. Yes, it’s right to note what the US has done in defiance of the UN over the years, not least over Iraq and with its 44 Israel-related vetoes in the Security Council. But Russia has taken vetoes to another level on Syria, covering for and enabling atrocities while working to make sure the UN cannot do what it needs to do to stop the carnage.
Regime Maintenance
Moscow first intervened militarily to prop up Assad’s deadly authoritarian rule in September 2015; had it not entered the fray, Assad’s reign would have almost certainly given way to a successor. But Russian backing for Assad began well before 2015.
For a start, his government has long been a major Russian arms client. While public data is incomplete because many transactions are highly opaque, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has tracked the build up of Syrian weapons purchases in the years leading up to the 2011 uprising. Russian military resources to Syria increased from $9 million in 2000 to $272 million in 2011.
Consider the Russian (and Chinese) veto of February 4, 2012, which blocked a draft resolution calling on Assad to relinquish power. At the time, there was uncertainty about whether Russia would abstain or vote no. Facing defeat amid mass protests and now armed resistance, the Assad regime accelerated its brutality through bombing. On the eve of the scheduled Security Council meeting, Assad’s forces bombarded the city of Homs, murdering scores of civilians.
Was this massacre designed to signal to Russia that Assad was prepared to go all out, burn the country, and win at any cost, meaning Moscow might as well back him? Or was Assad informed in advance that Russia would cast the veto, so he could slaughter with impunity? Does a veto clear the way for more brutality, or do acts of brutality force Russia to veto UN reprisals?
The most likely answer is both. The pattern is now firmly established: Assad kills civilians and political opponents, the Security Council considers a resolution, Russia vetoes it and puts outs propaganda to provide cover for Assad’s abuses, and the cycle of mass killings goes on. As Russian vetoes have become routine, they have emboldened Assad. As an Oxfam report said, even UN resolutions which were not blocked “have been ignored or undermined by the parties to the conflict, other UN member states, and even by members of the UNSC itself”.
The vetoes flaunt Moscow’s power to the world and reassure Russians at home. They are also helping Russia maintain a permanent military and political presence in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. In exchange for intervention, the Kremlin has gained access to Syria’s energy infrastructure and secured the future of its major Syrian bases on the Mediterranean.
The Wrong Path
Russia still has a choice: it can be a force for peace, liberty, and inclusion, or it can continue to shelter and defend tyrants. Given the Kremlin’s general hostility towards equality, liberalism, and democracy, it has chosen another path: to thwart the Security Council, violate its own ceasefire agreements, and overlook the consequences for civilians. This implicates it in the deaths of thousands of Syrians – more than the so-called Islamic State and the jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra combined.
To be sure, not all Security Council resolutions are worthy of support, and Russia cannot be held responsible for all of Assad’s crimes and human rights abuses. Western nations are certainly not unbiased; their decisions and interventions have had long-lasting pernicious effects on civilian populations in the Middle East, and they too have failed civilians in Syria and elsewhere.
The US intervened in Iraq to oust a dictator, Russia intervened in Syria to preserve one in power. Both moves have turned out to be disasters. But to document that Russia has killed civilians via its military and political interventions is not Russophobic. The death of each Syrian matters, regardless of who fired the shot, dropped the bomb, or maintained the siege.
Providing political cover for one tyrant will embolden others everywhere, as they learn how far they can push the boundaries of oppression. And all along, steps could have been taken to prevent or at least limit the carnage. Russia’s failure to do so in Syria and elsewhere will be to its eternal shame.
Under the proposal, Russian men can expect to retire at 65 and die at 66; many will never receive a pension at all. Small wonder they are miffed.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/09/29/things-are-going-wrong-for-vladimir-putin
“”Russia’s behaviour at the Security Council is not motivated by humanitarian concerns. ”
My god. Did Doucouliagos achieve a professorship in hypocrisy and tone deafness? When have any of the 5 permanent UNSC members shown any regard for humanitarian concerns other than as an excuse for furthering their own cynical agenda?
“While all sides have contributed to this catastrophe, the Assad regime in particular has made repression, brutality, and destruction its signature tactics – and Russia has chosen to protect it.”
And what does Doucouliagos have to say about the US protecting the Israelis or the Saudis in a similar fashion?
“Consider the Russian (and Chinese) veto of February 4, 2012, which blocked a draft resolution calling on Assad to relinquish power. ”
Consider what an absurd idea it was to ever contemplate such a ridiculous proposition? When in history has any leadership ever relinquished power just because a handful of states at the UN called for it? Can anyone imagine the US response to a call for the Saudis to relinquish power?
It’s hard to believe that Doucouliagos wrote this with a straight face or that he didn’t intend for it to be published by the Onion.
I note that there is not a single substantial point about Syria amid your ad hominem attack.
I also note that you fail to comprehend the article was written by two authors, not one.
Blah blah blah
Boring, try some other random bs. This outpouring was boring.
But whatabout……but whatabout……..but whatabout. LOL. Same old Andre. Using whataboutism and failing to make a single coherent point.
Dragan wrote: “When have any of the 5 permanent UNSC members shown any regard for humanitarian concerns other than as an excuse for furthering their own cynical agenda?”
So, it seems that we agree that Russia’s actions are not motivated by humanitarian concerns and are designed to pursue their own cynical agenda.
Oh dont worry he will never reply to you on this. Andre aka Dusan (lol) has very few intellectual capabilities when it comes to russian propaganda. Or most probably he will engage you with his usual anti US rant.
“So, it seems that we agree that Russia’s actions are not motivated by humanitarian concerns and are designed to pursue their own cynical agenda.”
Indeed we do agree. I never suggested any of the UNSC members are the least bit concerned about human rights. That naive proposition was made by the authors of the article, hence why I am pointing out that the authors are insulting the intelligence of their readers.
Hope that helps.
As one of the authors of the article, we actually referred to the actions of the US on the Security Council.
So don’t give me — let alone Chris — your crap, erroneous diversion and ad hominem jibe.
And if you are going to steal my line, “Hope that helps”, Andre — do some justice to it with a well-defended point.
Excuse curt comment Scott, I didn’t realise you were one of the authors. In all honesty , there is so much wrong with this piece.
The piece is filled with so much superficial rhetoric it leads one to wonder what the authors were trying to achieve. The UNSC essentially comes down to 2 factions. NATO vs Russia/China, with both sides frequently exploiting the venue to score political points. It is interesting that the articles recognizes that China voted with Russia on a number of occasions but only blames Russia. Indeed, the vetos understate the support Russia enjoys from China given that a veto on the UNSC makes all other votes inconsequential. Human rights are almost never a concern Mong the members of the UNSC, even if they are cited as a pertext.
The authors completely ignored how the US, France and Britain poinsones the well at the UNSC when they exploited the no fly zone resolution in Lybia to remove Gadhafi from power. This violated the terms of the resolution and crossed a line in the eyes of Russia and China. Russia and China will repeat the mistake of allowing such a stunt to be repeated. When debating a draft resolution for a no fly zone in Syria, the US essentially admitted to their malfeasance when Suzanne Rice insist this was not going to be a repeat of Lybia.
Notice how they insist that Assad deliberately targets civlians, while the US and it’s western allies have failed civilians in Syria and elsewhere. The hundreds of thousand of dead civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Syria don’t feel like they were bombed by the US, merely let down.
Anyone got a bucket?
Note the cynical attempt to rewrite history of the Iraq war by implying the US were unwittingly dragged into an conflict when they describe the US involvement as intervening, as opposed to attacking Iraq in a blatant act of unprovoked and unjustified military aggression.
“the Assad regime in particular has made repression, brutality, and destruction its signature tactics”
Yes, Assad who is bombing 8 countries and been at war every year since WWII in one form or another….oh wait
“had it not entered the fray, Assad’s reign would have almost certainly given way to a successor”
Which begs the question as to what successor the authors had in mind.
The US has long had an agreement to guarantee the rule of the Saudi monarchy against anyone challenging them. In other words, if the Saudi people were to rise up and threaten the rule of the Royal family, the US would be do exactly the same.
Another example. Take the following quote and replace Moscow with Washington, Kremlin with White House, Russians with Americans, Russia with the US and you have a summation of 60 years of US foreign policy.
“ The vetoes flaunt Moscow’s power to the world and reassure Russians at home. They are also helping Russia maintain a permanent military and political presence in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. In exchange for intervention, the Kremlin has gained access to Syria’s energy infrastructure and secured the future of its major Syrian bases on the Mediterranean.”
The suggestion that Russia’s vetos were motivated by arms sales is laughable. The cost of Russia’s deployment would be an order of magnitude greater.
Lastly, it is mind boggling to read the claim that “providing political cover for one tyrant will embolden others everywhere, as they learn how far they can push the boundaries of oppression”. Over 70% of the world’s dictators and tyrants already enjoy such impunity thanks to US support, but the problem is when Russian provides support to one.
Whataboutism.
“As one of the authors of the article, we actually referred to the actions of the US on the Security Council.”
Yes I meant to point that out, but in another part of the article, you dismiss this as case of whattaboutism. I would be curious to hear your thoughts as to which country you consider to “be a force for peace, liberty, and inclusion”, especially in light of recent speeches by the likes of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley threatening to take names.
Andre (Dragan),
I have no clue what you are on about — this is an article about Russia’s impact on Syrian conflict through its UN vetoes. The discussion is about this, not about your wayward ramble over the US.
S.
I admire your patience Scott……. 🙂
“I have no clue what you are on about — this is an article about Russia’s impact on Syrian conflict through its UN vetoes. The discussion is about this, not about your wayward ramble over the US.”
Scott,
You me to make specific criticisms about the article. I did so.
One of the premises of you argument is that Russia’s behaviour is unprededented by taking vetoes to “another level”, which invited investion as to whether this is true. You have failed to make that argument, in spite of your obvious attempts to whitewash crimes of the US and other permanent members of the UNSC.
You can’t it both ways. You want to argue that Russia’s conduct or vetos at the UN are unique, while rejecting comparisons to the track record of the US as being anti American, whattaboutrery or a diversion.
The universal rejection and condemnation of your arguments in the comments section at the Conversation blog is a fairly strong indicator of the weakness and incoinsistency of your arguments.
Andre (Dragan),
Oh, I see. Either because you do not understand or are trying to divert, you did not engage with “another level” — how in this case vetoes have been used as cover for assaults causing 100,000s of casualties and millions of displacement and for chemical warfare — and instead played whataboutism.
(Nice touch invoking fellow trolls in The Conversation comments section — I encourage readers to go there and see how I handled your colleagues.)
S.
Whattaboutism would not exist were hypocrisy and double standards.
I double admire your patience Scott…….. 🙂
“So, it seems that we agree that Russia’s actions are not motivated by humanitarian concerns and are designed to pursue their own cynical agenda.”
Absolutely, though to be honest, Russia didn’t bother worth the US marketing campaign of declaring nothing but good intentions for the entire world, then bombing indiscriminately anyone they consider a threat to their delusions of super-powerdom under the nebulous banner of freedom, liberty, and righteousness, all to combat terrorism.
As I mentioned, the calls for no fly zones but the US, Britain and Frace were also motivated by a cynical agenaga – namely to repeat their exploitation and manipulation of a no fly zone to remove Assad as they did in Lybia.
BTW. Nice touch comparing the US actions in Iraq as being motivated by remocal of a dictator (as if to suggested an altruistic motive) when the removal of Saddam had nothing to do with whether he was a dictator, but rather the determination by Washington that it was time for him to go and be replaced by another had picked puppet.
I disagree there is anything cyclical about not wanting to see Syria descent into a jihadists hell hole as was Saudis Arabia’s agenda.
“how in this case vetoes have been used as cover for assaults causing 100,000s of casualties and millions of displacement and for chemical warfare — and instead played whataboutism.”
Nothing to do with whattaboutism Scott. If the numbers of casualties was of concern to you, you and Chris would have investigated whether the US/Saudi policy of prolonging the war also contributed to the carnage. Your piece complete ignores the fact the war conflict could have been over years ago had the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan et all not been arming and funding the opposition groups, or facilitating the entry of foreign fighters to Syria. In doing so, the war was prolonged and contributed to the 100,000s of casualties and millions of displaced. Granted the outcome would not have been one to your liking, which might explain why you chose to ignore that point.
To be precise Scott, most of the 100,000s of casualties died defending the Assad government from foreign backed extremists.
Sorry that you consider the commentators of your piece at the Conversation to be trolls. They are not my colleagues any more than the likes of John Bolton. Mike Pompeo are Kay Bailey Hutchison are yours.
Andre (Dragan),
Again, you seem to be ignorant of the article’s core argument or diverting from it. Had Russian vetoes not blocked an international effort for peacekeeping and a political resolution in 2012, the subsequent escalation in arms to rebels — which followed the Assad regime’s mass killings of civilians in 2011-2012 — might not have ensued.
And you seem to be ignorant of the 100,000s of *civilian* casualties, more than 90% of which were inflicted by the Assad regime and its allies.
I am glad that you disassociate yourself from trolls commenting on The Conversation — but, if you are sincere, you should stop replicating their whataboutism and empty assertions.
S.
“Had Russian vetoes not blocked an international effort for peacekeeping and a political resolution in 2012, the subsequent escalation in arms to rebels — which followed the Assad regime’s mass killings of civilians in 2011-2012 — might not have ensued.”
Not only are you are guessing, but evidence points to the contrary. French foreign minister Roland Dumas, revealed that Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009, and that the plan involved the arming and funding of Islamic extremists groups to overthrow the Assad regime. So that pretty much debunks the theory that the flow of arms to Syria was motivated by an Assad crack down and would have cease in the event of a ceasefire. The US has made clear they regard the Syrian cauldron as a geopolitical struggle with Iran and Russia and will remain long after ISIS is eradicated. The agenda includes denying Assad revenue from oil fields in the region and to create yet another US base. The rational that they are remaining to support Kurdish autonomy is a farce for political consumption.
The Saudis were committed to regime change from the beginning based on their regional ambitions to counter Iranian influence. So was the US and it’s allies, with Obama proclaiming Assad would be gone within a year. At the very least, their position was that Syria would have to transition to a leadership that did not include Assad. Neither the US nor the Saudis were remotely concerned with casualties or there destruction of Syria.
Seeing as the Geneva talks continued until late last year, it is nonsensical to suggest Russia blocked attempts at political resolution. Geneva was a failure because both sides made demands unacceptable to the other. I have already addressed Russia’s opposition to am imposed no fly zone based on the fact it was exploited in Lybia.
“And you seem to be ignorant of the 100,000s of *civilian* casualties, more than 90% of which were inflicted by the Assad regime and its allies.”
I did not dispute that the majority of civlians deaths in Syria have come at the hands of the Syrian regime. The numbers you are citing are based on estimates by the SNHR, which closely related to the SOHR. Both have have stated that civilians who had taken up arms during the conflict were being counted under the category of “civilians”. Nir Rosen from Al Jazeera (no fan of Assad) stated that many of the deaths reported daily by activists were in fact armed insurgents falsely presented as civilian deaths.
The death toll from the US destruction of Raqqa alone has been estimates at around 10,000, though the SNHR attributes less than 5000 casualties at the hands of US forces throughout the entire conflict.
According to the UN, the death toll is around 400,000. At least half this number is comprised Syrian forces. Of that number, 200,000 are civlians and militants, which in their own right muster surely number in the many tens of thousands.
That aside, you are still avoiding the reality that the majority of these casualties would have been prevent had the US and it’s allies not been determined to keep the war going with their backing of opposition groups.
Only yesterday I met a Bishop from a local Assyrian Orthodox Church who’s members are almost entirely recent refugees from Syria. They told me of how in the space of one week, 400,000 Christians were driven out of one city in Syria – not by Assad – but by ISIS and similar groups. Nevertheless, these victims are collectively attributed to Assad by default.
“I am glad that you disassociate yourself from trolls commenting on The Conversation”
I know nothing about the commentators or their motivation so I am not responsible for their comments. Suffice to say I think it is dissingenous to dismiss them as trolls. I am sure a number of those trolls are frequent visitors to The Conversation who came across your article and simply disagree with your position.
Andre (Dragan),
This comment is such a mess of tangential points and distortions — Nir Rosen is very much a polemicist who has been supportive of the Assad regime’s line — that I don’t care to wade through it.
But here’s one point to highlight the disinformation: the Syrian Network for Human Rights has nothing to do with the SOHR.
S.
“This comment is such a mess of tangential points and distortions”
A distortion is beginning with a baseless assumption of what “may” have happened and using that as the foundation for the rest of your thesis. I demonstrated that the plan to overthrow Assad predated the conflict and that the agenda for regime chance on the part of th Saudis was not going to satiated by any peace agreement or ceasefire.
“Nir Rosen is very much a polemicist who has been supportive of the Assad regime’s line”
Al Jazeera certainly isn’t and he wouldn’t have a job with the outlet if that were true. You do yourself no credit by dismissing those who disagree with you as merely pandering to Assad or Russian narratives and reject the possibility that such individuals have arrived at their position independently.
I am sure i you would not appreciate being labelled a neocon or an agent of US hegemony.
1. You “demonstrated” nothing. You recycled the unsupported claim, as a diversion, that the US was behind local protests from March 2011.
2. Nir Rosen is not employed by Al Jazeera. He wrote occasional opinion pieces for AJ English, the last in 2012 — before he went all-in alongside Assad regime line.
1. I made no claim that the US was behind local protests from March 2011. I do believe foreign actors took advantage of those protests as they did in Lybia to escalate the conflict. Roland Dumas’ account is on the record, and thus far no evidence has been provided to suggest he lied.
2. What do you mean by “went all-in alongside Assad regime line”? Again you are resorting to some conspiracy theory that Rosen is pushing Assad propaganda for some alterior motive. By that logic, you and Bill Krystol are ideological twins seeing as the Weekly Standard is also a fierce critic of Rosen. IN fact, were this 2001, you would be out labelling anyone opposed to the run up to the war a Saddam apologist
1. Good, you’re backing away from your diversionary claim of a “plan to overthrow Assad predated the conflict” — although you’re still presenting mangled “evidence” such as the Dumas quote to cling onto the false assertion that it is at the root of the Syrian uprising.
2. You are wilfully ignorant about Rosen’s position, so let’s leave it at that.
1. Good, you’re backing away from your diversionary claim of a “plan to overthrow Assad predated the conflict”
Rest assured I am doing no such thing. The fact that the US didn’t instigate the initial demonstrations in Syria has no bearing or relevance to whether a plan to overthrow Assad existed. I am not sure what is mangled about Dumas’s statement. It strikes me as very literal.
What I am suggesting is that the powers that were determined to overthrow Assad used the existing demonstrations to escalate the conflict and overthrow Assad, just like they used the 911 attacks and lies about WMD to overthrow Saddam.
“2. You are wilfully ignorant about Rosen’s position, so let’s leave it at that.”
Not at all. Your argument that any position that does not conform to the Washington/Saudi/NATO consensus (ie. the one you hold) demonstrates a simplistic and tribalistic view of the world and dismisses any possibility that individuals might arrive at such opinions without being ignobled by Assad or Putin.
Yawn.