“Two” against Clinton: The West has Forgotten about the Existence of Sovereign States and the Principles of Democracy
Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Российская газета)
(Russia) on 7 February 2012
by Vasily Nikolaev, Viktor Feshchenko, Evgeny Shestakov (link to original)
(Russia) on 7 February 2012
by Vasily Nikolaev, Viktor Feshchenko, Evgeny Shestakov (link to original)
Translated from
by Maria Shendrick Frank.
Edited by Peter McGuire.
One can understand the resentment felt by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called Russia and China’s imposed veto of the Security Council resolution a "travesty."
Susan Rice, the U.S. representative to the U.N., was so upset about the matter that she altogether forgot about basic diplomatic decorum, saying: “The United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose here — addressing an ever-deepening crisis in Syria and a growing threat to regional peace and security.” The "couple," that allowed themselves to have a non-partisan opinion against the background of various countries dependent on the U.S., are Moscow and Beijing. The two nuclear powers, no matter how much the White House wishes it, have never followed obediently in the footsteps of American politics. They do not want to recognize the leading role of the "big brother” in Middle Eastern affairs. Washington politicians hypocritically accuse Russia of defending Syria in order to pursue its own economic interests. Apparently, the logic of the American critics is that U.S. actions are always based on pure altruism and high ideals. How these principles look in action was clearly demonstrated by American involvement during the military campaigns in Iraq and Libya.
Some experts say that Moscow should have accepted a resolution that condemned the violence by Syrian authorities. They say that if we had done this, we would have preserved good relations with members of the League of Arab States, would not have been subjected to criticism from the West and would have allowed the patrons of the Syrian opposition to let off some steam — especially since the resolution only condemned the Syrian regime’s violence against its opponents and did not open the way for direct military intervention against Damascus.
However, the experience of the "Arab spring" that swept the Middle East and North Africa clearly demonstrates that any appeals to peacefully let off some steam lead to the complete opposite result. At best, they end with a bloodless revolution, which paves the way to power for Islamic fundamentalists. At worst, they result in a protracted civil war, which can at any moment turn into a religious or tribal conflict. Such a confrontation can last for years, claiming more and more lives.
Does the United States sincerely believe that with the departure of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the situation will be magically resolved? It is unclear whether Western strategists have any idea what will be next for Syria if they precipitate the fall of the existing regime. Opponents of the Assad regime persistently repeat the need to protect Syrians from the authorities. But Damascus has long been preparing for full-scale reform that will reveal the real will of the people, rather than a handful of extremists with weapons in hand and support from Western and Arab backers trying to topple the Syrian leadership. It appears that the international community is interested in the country’s coming changes being peaceful, real and swift, as well as involving all political forces in their implementation. In practice, however, things are quite different.
The pressure continues to build around the situation in Syria. No one brings up al-Assad’s promised reforms or the dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition in the West. In contrast, opponents of Damascus’ officials are told to refuse any contact with the leadership of the country and are threatened with being deprived of their funding. Syria's emerging opposition is advantageous to many influential members of the League of Arab States, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These states are defending their interests in the region by using religious differences. The Syrian conflict plays into the hands of the European countries and the U.S. as well. A small, victorious war has always been the best way to improve the position of candidates from the ruling party during their re-election campaign.
The growing opposition is only unfavorable to Syria itself. Time is working against President al-Assad. Given its complex mosaic of ethnic and denominational peoples, civil war is not the most serious consequence of armed conflict in Syria; further worsening of the conflict threatens to push the country into collapse. It will lead to a "second Afghanistan" near Europe’s borders. However, the Western media tend not to mention this in their comments.
Syria is due for a change. Moscow and Beijing both understand this. President Bashar al-Assad has made many mistakes during his rule, but Russia is opposed to external forces using a U.N. Security Council resolution to unleash a civil war. To avoid such a development, a consensus needs to be reached by all political forces that the needed changes should occur peacefully. This would better protect the Syrian population from bloodshed in practice, not just in words.
Susan Rice, the U.S. representative to the U.N., was so upset about the matter that she altogether forgot about basic diplomatic decorum, saying: “The United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose here — addressing an ever-deepening crisis in Syria and a growing threat to regional peace and security.” The "couple," that allowed themselves to have a non-partisan opinion against the background of various countries dependent on the U.S., are Moscow and Beijing. The two nuclear powers, no matter how much the White House wishes it, have never followed obediently in the footsteps of American politics. They do not want to recognize the leading role of the "big brother” in Middle Eastern affairs. Washington politicians hypocritically accuse Russia of defending Syria in order to pursue its own economic interests. Apparently, the logic of the American critics is that U.S. actions are always based on pure altruism and high ideals. How these principles look in action was clearly demonstrated by American involvement during the military campaigns in Iraq and Libya.
Some experts say that Moscow should have accepted a resolution that condemned the violence by Syrian authorities. They say that if we had done this, we would have preserved good relations with members of the League of Arab States, would not have been subjected to criticism from the West and would have allowed the patrons of the Syrian opposition to let off some steam — especially since the resolution only condemned the Syrian regime’s violence against its opponents and did not open the way for direct military intervention against Damascus.
However, the experience of the "Arab spring" that swept the Middle East and North Africa clearly demonstrates that any appeals to peacefully let off some steam lead to the complete opposite result. At best, they end with a bloodless revolution, which paves the way to power for Islamic fundamentalists. At worst, they result in a protracted civil war, which can at any moment turn into a religious or tribal conflict. Such a confrontation can last for years, claiming more and more lives.
Does the United States sincerely believe that with the departure of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the situation will be magically resolved? It is unclear whether Western strategists have any idea what will be next for Syria if they precipitate the fall of the existing regime. Opponents of the Assad regime persistently repeat the need to protect Syrians from the authorities. But Damascus has long been preparing for full-scale reform that will reveal the real will of the people, rather than a handful of extremists with weapons in hand and support from Western and Arab backers trying to topple the Syrian leadership. It appears that the international community is interested in the country’s coming changes being peaceful, real and swift, as well as involving all political forces in their implementation. In practice, however, things are quite different.
The pressure continues to build around the situation in Syria. No one brings up al-Assad’s promised reforms or the dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition in the West. In contrast, opponents of Damascus’ officials are told to refuse any contact with the leadership of the country and are threatened with being deprived of their funding. Syria's emerging opposition is advantageous to many influential members of the League of Arab States, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These states are defending their interests in the region by using religious differences. The Syrian conflict plays into the hands of the European countries and the U.S. as well. A small, victorious war has always been the best way to improve the position of candidates from the ruling party during their re-election campaign.
The growing opposition is only unfavorable to Syria itself. Time is working against President al-Assad. Given its complex mosaic of ethnic and denominational peoples, civil war is not the most serious consequence of armed conflict in Syria; further worsening of the conflict threatens to push the country into collapse. It will lead to a "second Afghanistan" near Europe’s borders. However, the Western media tend not to mention this in their comments.
Syria is due for a change. Moscow and Beijing both understand this. President Bashar al-Assad has made many mistakes during his rule, but Russia is opposed to external forces using a U.N. Security Council resolution to unleash a civil war. To avoid such a development, a consensus needs to be reached by all political forces that the needed changes should occur peacefully. This would better protect the Syrian population from bloodshed in practice, not just in words.