Libyan Civil War
On February 4, Western politicians and journalists responded with outrage to the Russian and Chinese vetoing of a UN security council resolution calling for Syrian president Bashar Assad to step down as part of a ‘political transition’. UK foreign secretary, William Hague, said:
‘More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the last draft resolution in October 2011. How many more need to die before Russia and China allow the UN security council to act?
‘Those opposing UN security council action will have to account to the Syrian people for their actions, which do nothing to help bring an end to the violence that is ravaging the country. The United Kingdom will continue to support the people of Syria and the Arab League to find an end to the violence and allow a Syrian-led political transition.’
The corporate media took the same view. A leading article in the Independent commented:
‘Hillary Clinton described the vetoing of the UN resolution as a “travesty”. She is right. But this cannot be the international community’s last word.’
Curiously, while Hague talked of the West’s determination ‘to find an end to the violence’, and the media railed against the Russians and Chinese for failing to seek the same, almost no-one noticed that the resolution had itself subordinated the possibility of a ceasefire to the demand for regime change.
The draft resolution did call ‘for an immediate end to all violence’. But it specifically demanded ‘that the Syrian government… withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barracks’.
This one-sided demand that only Syrian government forces should withdraw from the streets closely resembled the Machiavellian device built into UN Resolution 1973 on Libya, passed on March 17, 2011.
This also called for ‘the immediate establishment of a cease-fire’ supported by ‘a ban on all flights’ in Libyan airspace. But crucially, the determination was added ‘to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi…’
The recent veto of the UN Security Council resolution by both China and Russia have been decried by Western politicians and pundits as a travesty. What is lacking here is a slightest bit of context. Of course the pretext of humanitarian intervention is useful when it coincides with imperial interests, but becomes invisible when the country in question is ruled by a pliant client or subordinate regime.
Least we forget the Libyan experience that unfolded over the past year. The US and its junior partners in the Security Council managed to pass Resolution 1973, if not with Chinese and Russian support, than at least with acquiescence. The major corporate media outlets and their journalists may have forgotten what transpired, but the policy makers in Russia and China surely have not. A resolution to protect civilians and establish a no fly zone over parts of LIbya quickly morphed into a mandate for regime change, with the US/NATO leading the way and Russia and China on the outside looking in.
China and Russia were certainly not going to allow a repeat of this experience in Syria. Without explicitly worded guarantees to the contrary in the UN Security Council resolution, it was a forgone conclusion that they would exercise their respective vetos. While the US may not have wanted to take the Libyan option in Syria, especially with the reluctance of the Israeli regime to see Assad go for fear what comes after him, it is certainly happy to be able to paint Russia and China as the impediments to stopping the bloodshed in Syria.
The Other Americas 