Yesterday
morning, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council move to prosecute
Syrian war crimes. This is
apparently the fourth time that both Russia and China have vetoed measures to
intervene in Syria, and in my opinion represent an instance in which calculated
interests are in direct opposition of social norms. Similar to CajM, I also seem to absorb concepts better when
applied to real world situations. (Note: the original article by NY Times’ Rick
Gladstone has been replaced by the article the hyperlink links to. Not sure
why. I saved the original as a PDF, so send me an email if you would like a
copy.)
The
statements made in response to Russia and China’s veto to intervene in Syria were
neatly in line with promoting shared values. Samantha Power, the United States ambassador, made a
statement appealing to pathos.
“Sadly, because of the decision of the Russian Federation to back the
Syrian regime no matter what it does, the Syrian people will not see justice
today. They will see crime, but
not punishment”. The French
ambassador, Gerard Araud, agreed with Powers and said a veto of the resolution
was akin to “vetoing justice” (Gladstone).
The
concept of justice is an idea – it is a social construct that we pick up from
our cultural environment. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights has put this idea on paper, and is
commonly referred to in cases of human rights violations, as in Syria. The mutual common purpose of more than
50 countries on the General Assembly to intervene in Syria is founded on this norm. They are not asking, “what is most
likely to succeed, but rather what is the right thing to do” (Prof. Jackson).
In
direct opposition to the quote by Prof. Jackson are the statements of Russia
and China. Rick Gladstone of the
NY Times reported that the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin argued that the
resolution was a “publicity stunt that would be counterproductive and subvert
any diplomatic efforts to settle the conflict.” The deputy permanent representative of China stated, “To
forcibly refer the situation of Syria to the I.C.C. is neither conducive to
building trust among all parties in Syria or to early resumption of negotiations
in Geneva.” Both Russia and
China’s statements are void of any reference to “justice,” and express
calculated interests analyzing the success of an intervention in Syria.
While
these countries continue to debate the best course of action, the unrest in
Syria persists. My own values are in line with the vast majority
of the General Assembly supporting an intervention, and it is hard to understand the
interests of the two dissenters in light of the turmoil in Syria.
Interesting blog, Joy. I can definitely empathize with your values that the US should intervene in Syria because Assad has crossed a red line with regard to the use of chemical weapons. Today's news reported that President Obama will authorize the US military to train Syrian rebels outside of Syria. However, I also think that US foreign policy is at its best when it is guided by pragmatic interest. There is nothing vital to US national security interests in Syria. It is not worth risking US blood and treasure when both sides have serious flaws. For example, this conflict has become a proxy war where an Al Qaeda affiliated Sunni extremists are fighting against the Assad Alawite regime that is receiving support from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. The US cannot always bring a positive outcome in other nation's internal conflicts; however, we should try to empower the more secular factions of the rebels.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mike. I didn't mean to imply that I thought U.S. intervention in particular was necessary. You make a great point in your comment though, and I agree that if support is provided, it should be done so indirectly.
ReplyDelete