American politics
America, Syria and the UN
This is what foreign-policy success looks like
Feb 7th 2012, 15:00 by M.S.
NOWHERE near enough attention is being paid to the way the diplomacy around the Syrian civil war is playing out. Nowhere near enough. The other day I noted that nothing had made me as pessimistic about development aid as the endgame of our failed intervention in Afghanistan. Today let me paint a stroke in the other direction: nothing has made me as optimistic recently about the prospects for a broadly international, pro-human-rights, anti-authoritarian foreign policy that brings together America, the democratic world, and many of the emerging-market/non-aligned countries as what's happening right now around the Syria question. The complete isolation of Russia and China in the Security Council vote on sanctions last week is a watershed moment. It not only, as my colleague writes, cemented the image of Russia and China backed into a corner together in defence of authoritarianism. It also strengthened the tentative cohesion formed during the Libyan revolution last year between the democratic West, Arab democracy movements, and the Arab League.
The Western criticism was echoed in the Middle East, where Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and non-Arab Turkey have turned decisively against Assad in recent months.
"Unfortunately, yesterday in the U.N., the Cold War logic continues," said Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. "Russia and China did not vote based on the existing realities but more a reflexive attitude against the West."
Arab League head Nabil Elaraby said the body still intends to build support for its plan. The veto "does not negate that there is clear international support for the resolutions of the Arab League," he said in a statement seen by Reuters.
The Security Council's sole Arab member, Morocco, voiced "great regret and disappointment" at the veto. Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki...said the Arabs had no intention of abandoning their plan.
Burhan Ghalioun, head of the opposition umbrella Syrian National Council, called Moscow and Beijing's veto "a new license to kill from these two capitals for Bashar al-Assad and his criminal regime, which just yesterday killed 300 people." The SNC said it held Moscow and Beijing "responsible for the escalating acts of killing and genocide."
Protesters stormed the Russian embassy in Libya's capital Tripoli Sunday, climbing on the roof and tearing down the flag. Men held up a banner saying: "Libyan revolutionaries are ready to fight with their brothers in Syria."
This is simply extraordinary. At Foreign Policy, Colum Lynch notes that Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the UN, blamed the backers of the resolution for promoting a strategy of "regime change". Mr Churkin seems to have phoned in his quote from a secret city in Siberia where the year is still 2003. There is a world of difference between an American request in the UN Security Council for authority to launch an invasion of a stable country, and a proposal for sanctions under a Security Council umbrella on a regime that is actively slaughtering its own citizens in order to cling to power in the face of a popular uprising. And when the Arab League, the relevant local multilateral group, is strongly behind the proposal, that should settle the question.
What is Russia thinking? The reflexive Russian opposition to international sanctions against authoritarian regimes facing popular uprisings would make some sense if Russia itself feared becoming the target of such sanctions; but that seems a remote prospect, and should it come to pass, Security Council resolutions would be the last thing Moscow has to worry about. It might have made sense in the days when the USSR acted as a vetoing aegis in the Security Council for a worldwide bloc of authoritarian client states prone to periodic revolts. But Russia's remaining client states are a paltry and threadbare lot. Does Moscow really think that sticking its neck out pre-emptively to forestall any potential future sanctions vote in case of an uprising in Belarus is worth earning the hatred and contempt of the youth of the Muslim world? It's a debacle, and strong evidence for Stephen Holmes's argument that the Putin regime, far from a latter-day revanche of efficient Soviet central command, is a dysfunctional and disintegrating mess.
As for China, the vote is yet another in a series of recent strikes against the notion that Chinese "soft power" was poised to vanquish American hard power in the developing world. Over the past three years, China has proven inept and pointlessly confrontational in its push to seize control of the South China Sea. A relatively subtle American policy of offering help to regional countries looking for a counterweight to China, orchestrated with unobtrusive but pointed intent by Hillary Clinton, has proven extremely effective. Against all expectations, Western influence suddenly seems to be winning out even in Myanmar. In southeast Asia these days we are the soft power, China is the hard one, and we're winning.
I could go on, but I'm really just supplying more and more examples to underscore the basic point. For the past three years America has been walking softly, and it's working very, very well. Ten years back, America often found itself isolated, struggling to pull together "coalitions of the willing" packed with small client states. Lately, we have been finding ourselves in the majority, along with the democratic world, while Russia and China front a dwindling coalition of the unwilling. To some extent, this reflects a smart, subtle foreign-policy presence in which we have done a vastly better job of looking at what other countries actually want, and seeing where our interests align, rather than trying to bully other countries into supporting our goals. To some extent, it's luck: the Arab spring happened.
And to some extent, there's a personal factor. Look through the Pew Global Attitudes project data on confidence in the US president. In almost every country, you'll see a dramatic or startling increase in confidence between 2008 and 2011. In Germany and France, George Bush had approval ratings in the low teens in 2008; Barack Obama's approval has never dropped below 80%. In Japan and Britain the shift is nearly as striking. In Egypt, the corresponding figures are 11% and 35%. Even in Russia itself, they are 22% and 41%. When Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice try to win backing for American positions at the UN, the exceptional popularity of the president they represent in other countries is obviously a factor. Commentators who envision Barack Obama running on his foreign-policy successes in this year's campaign generally adduce examples like the assassination of Osama bin Laden and the crippling of al-Qaeda. Perhaps these are the examples that figure most clearly in the American voter's imagination. It would be nice, though, if voters evaluated presidents' foreign policies on the basis of whether they had won the respect of the world and advanced American interests internationally. The evidence of recent American foreign-policy effectiveness isn't that we've shot a lot of bad guys. It's that when our UN ambassador calls the Chinese and Russian vetoes of action on Syria "disgusting", she's speaking for the overwhelming majority of the world, and they are in the isolated minority.
(Photo credit: AFP)
In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Personality and polarisation: The big sort
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
The Russians and Chinese are thinking in the interests of world peace. Nobody but the most wicked elites in the United States, Great Britain, and, apparently these days, part of Paris, want a massive war to break out in the Middle East.
China and Russia are adhering to their realist policy of avoiding conflict that leads to regime change. There is nothing to suggest that Syrian rebels are a unified fighting force, on the contrary any regime change in Syria may simply replicate the current situation of Libya. In the grand scheme of things, we live in the world of realpolitik and support for the Syrian rebels is a mere reflection of states weighing up their own net costs and benefits of a post-Assad Syria. China and Russia see no benefit from intervention, while the rest of the UN security council will continue to make bold commitments to liberal idealism. Only the US has the ability to follow these commitments through.
Russia and China isolated? India only supported the resolution after all language that even remotely opened the possibility of intervention had been deleted. Many other Southern countries follow that line. Morocco is very probably under heavy pressure from the Wahabi oil dictatorships Qatar and Saudi Arabia that if it doesn't deliver they will organize an uprising there too. That so many countries supported the resolution is mainly the result of our modern-day mobster diplomacy where any country that votes against the US can face serious repercussions.
As for the Syrian National Council: it is a bad joke, composed from exiles by Western and Wahabi diplomats. It represents nobody - its influence amongst the protesters and fighters inside Syria is close to zero.
Russia's demands that we should ask the opposition to stop their violence too and that we finally should really support negotiations are very reasonable. That the West opposes them shows to what extent our politicians have sold out to the oil tyrants.
I suppose this is American nationalist rhetoric, without the fist thumping but replete with a smug sense of inherent superiority.
We condemn the actions of Syria (an oppressive regime killing its own citizens) on one hand, while supplying Bahrain (an oppressive regime killing its own citizens) with new military capabilities on the other. Not to mention we also kill our own citizens without due process of law (Anwar Al-awlaki and his 16 year old son) or pass measures by which to detain them permanently without trial (NDAA). We are also not afraid to stand unanimously (with Israel) against the UN and the "International Community," defying recognized norms of Justice and Human Rights, when the stance suits our interests (Palestine's bid for UN membership and the embargo against Cuba). But, hey, at least we finally ended our long, disastrous War on Terror when Osama Bin Ladin's body was dumped into the sea! Who's next?
Russian and Chinese intransigence has certainly appeared to galvanize the world in opposition, but they have also effectively neutered the UN's ability to influence events (specifically the Security Council). How long should the world wait for reform in the UN before exploring other options? We still have pressing issues beyond Syria that require urgent attention (Iran comes to mind).
However wrong, the decision to veto the resolution by Russia and China makes plenty of rational sense within the framework of international relations. That it has "cemented the image of Russia and China backed into a corner together in defence of authoritarianism" is laughably shallow and well below the analytical standards i expect from the Economist.
Best resume: "It's a debacle, and strong evidence for Stephen Holmes's argument that the Putin regime, far from a latter-day revanche of efficient Soviet central command, is a dysfunctional and disintegrating mess."
This event resumes what will happen soon in Syria against the Russians:
"Protesters stormed the Russian embassy in Libya's capital Tripoli Sunday, climbing on the roof and tearing down the flag. Men held up a banner saying: "Libyan revolutionaries are ready to fight with their brothers in Syria."
What losers they are!
The storming of the Russian embassy in Tripoli is a perfect illustration of what kind of violent people the Brotherhood are. Tomorrow they may throw acid in your daughters face for wearing indecent dresses.
It is an interesting, but deeply flawed article. We have a foreign policy success, when goals are reached.
And what is the goal? As far as I know, the goal is to draw Russia and China into international cooperation and participation in global capitalism. The author seems to be living in the Cold War, when the goal was to isolate and discredit these countries. The West wants Russia and China working within the system, not as excluded opponents.
What we have is a strategic failure, with collateral tactical benefits.
Actually, the author seems to be suggesting that the two countries are doing it to themselves.
The end goal is a worthy one to aspire to but lets not run to the praise of the Americans and criticize the Russians. One only needs to look at Palestine and Georgia to see that the US is hardly in it for some ideological reasons of a peoples right to self-determination, governance and freedom. Even in Libya and Egypt it was on the wrong foot and simply pre-empted by events on the ground, and they only moved more firmly against rulers they didnt like vs. those that they did, just look at Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Leave aside moral seclusion, the US is in the same boat with Israel over Palestion, here the Russians have another cause as well, they did not pass a resolution that enabled the bombing Libya, yet it was done under that aegis, any surprise they won't sign up to that con job again? Leave aside moral right and indignation, that is hardly a calculation in politics beyond providing a flag under which to galvanize popular support.
I think that our delightful woman Secretary of State angrily used the term "impotent" to refer to the two recalcitrant states. This particular word-choice is doubly powerful; coming from a strong women and directed at two weak men, and directed at states in which pride and masculinity are so culturally important.
Clinton for President.
As to China, their history has not been expansionist. Having suffered much at the hands of foreign conquerors it is logical that they seek to enhance their military capabilities. What is of concern though is the growing and startling internal instability there, and their culturally imbedded xenophobia. As their economy continues to evolve, they will require an educated workforce, which may demand more say in their government. Also, the poor farmer shoveling manure 16 hours a day may want to move to the 'special economic zones' but will not receive permission to do so. Hopefully, the Chinese government doesn't turn to the imbedded xenophobia to 'unite' the country against foreign 'oppressors'. This is the only thing we need fear, a prosperous, influential and free China is in humanity's interest.
China's always had a policy of non-intervention though. And considering the country's political discourse, I don't think it's surprising how they voted here. I think the nation's leaders are simply doing what they think is needed to ensure it's own political interests back home (or to hang onto power, depending on how you see it).
In an earlier post I suggested there were probably a number of cynical yet sound reasons for Russia's veto. Thankfully another correspondent flushed them out
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/02/syria
Maybe Russia's calculations are poor, but at least they're actually explored in the link above.
I think President Obama deserves praise for being competent on foreign policy. But Obama benefits quite a bit from being compared to the previous president, who was terrible on a historic level. I believe Obama, Hillary Clinton et al have done well, but I have a hard time considering their work outside of that context.
Very interesting point of view that I valued and enjoyed however the contribution of the Bush administration is improperly diminished. Like other major historical events progress occurred on many fronts at the same time so it is impossible to point to a singular event as the genesis of the Arab Spring. One of the central events however was marked by millions of purple fingers in Iraq. The liberation of the Iraqi people occurred at a rate of casualties lower than has ever occurred in world history (millions liberated for limited thousands of casualties). Regardless of how apoplectically the liberals come screaming from the woodwork to renounce Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney the liberation of Iraq contributed and played a central role in the Genesis of the Arab Spring.
You speak of a few thousand and low damage to Iraq...that may be the cost to the US, to Iraq its hundreds of thousands and entire generation lost and straddled with the trauma of long war and the massive challenge of stringing it together. 10 years on, Iraq is still a massive political mess and has seen quality of life regress inclculably. Saddams removal is a blessing, but was it worth the cost? An alternate method would have been anyones choice for a regime change. Sorry, but the Iraq example is the great bogeyman of what exactly can go wrong and is to be feared from a revolution. The fear that kept Arabs from revolting in the firstplace because the borders are a messy colonial legacy. The biggest change however was that the situation in Syria did not play out elsewhere as the armies in Tunisia and Egypt refused to turn their guns on their own people. The Arabs are culturally very risk averse politically in this regard and the fact that the Arab Spring happenned inspite of Iraq speaks of the strong generational pressures and expectations that a massive youth population had vs. the historic baggage and attitude carried by an old guard that rose in, anti-colonial, nationalist and cold-war riven politics of the the post world-war era.
China and Russia have certainly shot themsleves in the foot over Syria.
"Russia and China are not backed into a corner. Everyone else is." Every once in a while, an example of autistic reasoning hits these threads and the insanity of a statement like the preceding is a perfect example of the way Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan felt in 1939.
Japan has ZERO natural resources and Nazi Germany preached "German supremacy." How do they parallel Russia or China?
A lucid person must look at the way the global economy is headed. The global economy is based on commodities. As the worlds population continue to grow and fossil fuels grow more scarce much of the rest of the world will be at the mercy of their policies. It is only a matter of time until Russia and China begin to exploit their positions on the global stage.
It seems to me that Putin represents everything that is holding Russia back from emerging as a great and powerful ally to democracy and freedom.
Putin knows that Russia, in due time, will not have to acquiesce to countries that are democratic. With there hybrid regime of democracy (however scarce) and authoritarianism they are going to be the next USA in within 20 years.
not sure I agree they'll be the next US in 20years when they have a declining population, lack of foreign investment, lack of domestic investment, high unemployment, and an expensive and ailing military. True, this is a resource rich country that if they were able to realize their full potential could rival the US but based on leadership and the culture of Russian society 20 years is not realistic.
The only thing Russia has is natural gas and a lot of land. Their population is suffering heavily from alcohol abuse, making Russia the only country (including third world countries) to see a decline in their life expectancy. With qualities like that, it's almost impossible to conceive of Russia being "the next USA" ever. Also, sorry to be captain obvious, but didn't we already have this competition? It was called the Cold War.
Russia has unbelievable amounts of oil in the northern parts of Siberia. Their life expectancy may be taking a hit from alcohol, whereas the States is suffering from obesity and not to mention unwavering arrogance. Their population may be decreasing, but is that truly a problem? Having a gigantic and unnecessarily large population stains resources and propagates infectious disease (Africa is attesting to this right now). Regarding Russia's military, they are downsizing (just like the US) and restructuring. I had the privilege to get underway for a week with the flagship from Severomorsk Russia and can say if anything, we Americans are lacking (This is from a US Navy Sailor's perspective.
Russia still has ships rusting in it's waters, an inability to pay it's servicemen (without corruption and bullying), and a declining population typically means that the average countryman is not doing well at all. While I'll agree the US needs to downsize its military the Navy is not where I'd start. I'd start with the Army since we dont plan on taking over any country any time soon.
I was stationed for 4 1/2 years on a U.S. warship that was commissioned in 1983. It is still active and deployed in the Southern Hemisphere (We will call it the USS Rustbucket). If you think a warship commissioned in 1983 isn't rusting you are kidding yourself. This is not a rare incident in the U.S. Navy. They hold on to old ships with thinning hulls with antiquated technology. The USS Enterprise is nearly 40 years old. Can you guess its condition? Everyone can say the cold war hurt Russia militarily but everyone seems to ignore the impact it had on the U.S. To put it into perspective: When I was in training for the equipment I was to operate I was trained using cold war Russian assets as the threat. The U.S. is decades behind Russia and China regarding military assets.
what military assets are we decades behinds China and Russian on the only one that comes to mind is cyberattacks? China has their 1st carrier who's pilots arent even trained yet to land on it while moving. Even if their carrier was more technologically advanced then ours the people supporting it aren't, nullifying the technology to a large extent. Are you seriously suggesting that Russia's navy compares to the US? Are you saying the ship you were on built in 1983 hasn't been retro-fitted in 30 years? We are light years ahead of both of these countries in air power, sea power, and land power. Ask yourself one question, if the Russians had something better than the US, they would sell it to its allies and we'd see it on the battlefield much like they did during the Korean War with their Migs and Vietnam and many other conflicts with the Kalashnikov and RPG's.
Arlan
I'm not sure where you get your facts from but the USS Enterprise refurbished in 2010.
I never said the USS enterprise wasn't refurbished. I said it was old. All ships get refurbished to an extend; they are called yard periods to a sailor. In regards to the selling of military equipment the US is one of the few countries that don't do this. Germany sells all of it 209 model submarines except the Alpa class, Russia sells their Kilos to everyone except the Kilo III A, and the Scandinavia countries bring in a ton of revenue with the silent diesels they are so fond of producing. These other countries do this in efforts to know and understand the capabilities of their enemies.
you do realize America is the largest arms dealer on the planet by a large margin.
What does the U.S. being an arms dealer have to do with any of this? I was speaking in regards to military "equipment". I never mention arms once. Please do me a favor and parse my statements a little better before attempted a pathetic attempt to refute them.
your post" In regards to the selling of military equipment the US is one of the few countries that don't do this" All sales coming from the US military are lumped into our arms sales numbers whether its a humvee, kevlar vest, aircraft, or stinger missles. Set this aside this for a moment, I have no idea why you went down this path any my original premise is that unless both Russian culture and leadership change the wont be the next US in the next 20 yrs.
It is completely asinine to thing the US would lump munitions with equipment (Lets lump MK 46 torpedoes with Humvees. Makes sense to me). These are two completely different categories. WE went down this path because it is related to the original premise; we must utilize supporting facts in a debate. Russia = self-sufficient w/ a gov't that is restructuring for the better. U.S. = Declining/stagnate economy and NEEDS resources of other countries (minus corn). And lets not forget that if idiots keep breading in litters in the U.S. we are in a completely different world of hurt.