Although both countries say they stand against the violation of national sovereignty, Russia has taken the lead on the recent votes and therefore bears the lion’s share of responsibility for derailing the international effort to end violence that has killed more than 15,000 Syrians.
Like Russia, China wants to preserve its freedom to deal with critics and minorities at home as it sees fit. Beijing, which has a strong interest in maintaining the global stability necessary for its manufacturing economy to boom, has been happy to take the back seat, going along with Russia on the vetoes — or abstaining, as in the case of a resolution against Libya last year that allowed NATO to lead a bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
However, Russia also sees its Security Council seat as its chief weapon for its opposition to the West, something Moscow believes increases its importance in the world by giving it Cold War-era clout. Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, defended his country’s veto by saying it was designed to “fan the flames” by countries motivated by their own “geopolitical ambitions.”
As to the Chinese moral for taking the position on Syria as they did at the UN: China cares about its economic interests, above its policy of non-intervention. And so far in the cost-benefit equation over Syria, non-intervention wins. So, China may be letting Russia take the lead — and thus most of the flack, as per usual — but it is right there waiting in the wings ready to follow up.
Read more: China or Russia: Who's the bigger jerk? | GlobalPost
No comments:
Post a Comment