"In bull-fighting they speak of the terrain of the bull and the terrain of the bull-fighter. As long as the bull-fighter stays in his own terrain he is completely safe. Each time he enters into the terrain of the bull he is in great danger. Belmonte, in his best days, worked always in the terrain of the bull. This way, he gave the sensation of coming tragedy." ~ Chapter 18, The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway
"In international relations, we all work in the terrain of the Bull" ~ The Attache
In the recent
past, Russia and China have vetoed resolutions in relation to the conflict in
Syria at the United Nations Security Council.
In the wake of
the Arab spring, the conflict in Syria has continued to escalate. Attempts
have been made, most recently by the British Government, to punish the
Government of Syria by imposing economic sanctions. The Security Council has the mandate of tackling issues of global peace and security.
Therefore, any such sanctions against Syria would have to be passed by the Security Council.
However, in order for any resolution to be passed, the Permanent Five members of the Security Council must vote unanimously in favour of the resolution.
In our current
discussion Russia and China, who are part of the P5, have vetoed resolutions
for sanctions in Syria. This means that the UN may not impose sanctions on the Syrian Government. The sanctions are meant to coerce the
Syrian government to end the conflict.
There has been
wide ranging academic discourse on the veto power and its use since its
inception in the late 40’s. The P5 consists essentially of the victors of the
Second World War. Scholars have argued that due to ideological differences, such
as Socialism and Capitalism, Russia and China have traditionally been at odds
in voting at the Security Council with America, France and Britain. This is
an argument from a more Structuralist school of thought that talks about the
development of two streams of society. This may be ‘the Core’ and ‘the
Periphery’ or ‘Socialists and Capitalists’. These differences in ideology may
explain why Russia and China may vote together against the other members of the
P5.
On the other
hand, a realist theory perspective may explain the actions of Russia and
China in voting against the proposed sanctions. Scholars from this
school of thought have very state-centric perspectives and they argue that
national interests are of the utmost importance in the decision making of a
state.
This argument would lead us to the conclusion that there are certain
national interests that Russia and China have in Syria and perhaps in the
region that need to be protected. The Governments in Russia and China choose to
safe guard interests by voting against any resolutions on Syria that may harm
their National interests. These interests may be economic, military, a need to
have a foothold in the middle-east, among others.
The perspective from this desk is that it is relevant important to ascertain the motives of the fighting bulls and that perhaps it may lead to the development of solutions to the conflict in Syria.....and perhaps saving the grass a lot of damage.
Good post. Only I do not know for how much longer the Syrian people will continue being 'the grass.' In my view a government that has adjudicated over the deaths of about 100,000 thousand has lost any authority, moral or otherwise,to govern or to continue to say it speaks on behalf of 'its' people. Furthermore claims that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its citizens, should they be true, and increasing evidence is confirming this as true, are not only worrying but criminal. Could the time be ripe to invoke the Uniting for Peace Resolution?
ReplyDeleteUniting for peace...that's a good proposal quiet storm...by-passing the security council is a viable option in the case of mounting some sort of intervention. However, I believe that there is no appetite for intervention, especially from America due to the role of public opinion in that country. It is also important to note that on the issue of chemical weapons, the use of the word 'evidence' should be examined in the light of the WMD fiasco. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard of what 'evidence' constitutes. Are we creating another excuse to go there and apply what 'we' think is right? We must also critically examine whether some states may actually be benefiting from a destabilised Syria. The U.S is not averse to implementing a policy of 'destabilise to stabilise'.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether the Syrian Government represents the true will of the people.....the question is what the actual number of those who are against the Assad government? And what is the tipping point of a government and at what point does the government become illegitimate?
I am in no way condoning the actions of either of the sides...but if you read a previous post from the Attache's desk (How To Be A Great Political Analyst.....Like Me.) you will understand that it is important to examine both sides of the situation.
A quick examination will reveal the reason for the UNITED STATE'S lethargic attitude towards Syria... NO OIL!! PERIOD!! The realization of any economic benefit by the UNITED STATES or P5 members would have seen a halt to the conflict but quite possibly through the mentioned 'destabilize to stabilize' methodology. I am yet to comprehend the 'SOCIALIST' interest in this desert!!
ReplyDeleteRussia is on of Syria's largest trading partner in the middle so there are indeed some significant economic interests that need to be protected. There is still the vague suspicion that ideological wars i.e socialism/capitalism, are still being fought via proxy. I think the trick to understanding the American reaction is the issue of direct Vs indirect intervention. Is America in Syria or not? does their support (though non-military) to the rebels count as a significant intervention?
ReplyDelete