Syria: Western powers up against wall of Bricks

The recent double veto by Russia and China of the Security Council resolution against Syria revealed sharp divisions in the UN that had been simmering since the NATO-led military intervention in Libya got off the ground.

The European-drafted resolution, which had the backing of the US, called for an immediate end to the crackdown on anti government protests in Syria and threatened action against the Assad regime if it did not respond to the call. The resolution was seen by Russia and China as opening the door to sanctions, and possible intervention similar to that which brought down the Gaddafi regime.

It was clear that Russia's UN envoy Vitaly Churkin had Libya in mind when he said, "What we see is a policy of regime change, and the policy of enticing the opposition, the policy of telling the opposition and everybody - I mean diplomats -we are not going to talk to the government. And we believe this is very dangerous."

Bashar al-Assad	Vitaly Churkin

The stormy Security Council session saw the council members trading insults, with the US's UN ambassador Susan Rice staging a walk-out during the Syrian delegate's speech. Rice expressed outrage over the actions of Russia and China which effectively buried the resolution. She accused the Russians of adopting a 'cheap ruse' in order to be able to sell arms to Syria.

Nobody can deny the brutality of the Syrian government's relentless suppression of the pro-democracy protests, typical of the wave of rebellions that has been sweeping the region in recent times. According to UN estimates, 2,700 have been killed in the six month long crackdown in Syria. Yet it was only to be expected that western-backed moves attempted in Syria would be viewed in the light of what happened in Libya, where a UN mandate to protect civilians was manipulated by the western powers to bring about a regime change.

The resolution condemning Syria garnered the required nine votes from the 15 member Security Council but was blocked by Russia and China, two of its five veto-wielding members. Brazil, India and South Africa abstained during the vote, along with Lebanon. Russian concern over perceived western interference in the internal affairs of other states is shared by Brazil, India, China and South Africa.

The group of emerging powers known as BRICS had for months sought to urge parties in Syria to resolve the crisis through talks. After the vote Churkin is reported to have told journalists, "We are not advocates of the Bashar al-Assad regime at all," adding that Russia was demanding reforms and that his country was not taking sides. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's call on Friday for Assad to either enact reforms or step down is seen as the sternest warning yet to Syria. He also reportedly warned that the west should not to try to oust Assad. Russia has a naval facility in Syria, its longtime ally in the region.

The US's expressions of solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people would need to be seen in the light of the superpower's history of selective support of regimes based on factors that have nothing to do with human rights. Depending on strategic considerations the US has at different times propped up dictatorships around the globe -- Marcos in the Philippines, Noriega in Panama, Pinochet in Chile and the Shah of Iran, to name a few. The recent military intervention in Libya, ostensibly undertaken on the basis of 'responsibility to protect,' needs to be compared with the west's lukewarm attitude to violent suppression of protests simultaneously taking place in Bahrain and Yemen.

Given the past and recent history, the pursuit of human rights abroad by the US and its allies would seem to be more like a weapon used to force other states into conformity with their objectives, rather than anything to do with protecting the weak in an unequal world. The record shows that these powers would exercise military might or use undercover operations (or both) to support oppressive regimes, or topple them, or look the other way, depending on which option serves their interests at the given time.

Russian and Chinese actions during the vote on Syria might then be seen as push-back against a perceived tendency of western powers to mould the emerging world order so as to be able to continue to call the shots. This is possibly what the Russian ambassador to the UN meant when he described western-led moves in relation to Syria - that seemed to anticipate a follow up to the precedent set in Libya - as "very dangerous."

Moving away from Syria, the BRICS' stance on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states would seem to resonate in Sri Lanka, which has seen its share of western meddling on the basis of concern over human rights. This trend has intensified since the end of the war, partly owing to pressures on western governments from the rump LTTE and its supporters within the Tamil diaspora who would like to see Sri Lanka punished. The most recent instance was Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's threat to boycott the Commonwealth Summit, due to be held in Sri Lanka in 2013, unless Sri Lanka showed "progress on human rights."

Harper's statement is of interest because it betrays a typical western misconception in relation to the war against the LTTE. He is reported to have said, "The country needs to make progress not just in terms of what they did against the Tamil Tigers, but they do have to make advances in terms of political reconciliation, democratic values and accountability."

When he refers to "what they did against the Tamil Tigers" it would appear that the Canadian leader has a problem with the fact that the government of Sri Lanka defeated the LTTE, a terrorist group that plagued the country for 30 years. Is he unable to distinguish between the Tamil Tigers and the Tamil community? Or, like many in the western world where the Tamil diaspora's narrative prevails, does he believe that the LTTE were "freedom fighters?"

Most people in Sri Lanka would see the defeat of the LTTE as an action along the lines of the state's responsibility to protect its citizens. But perhaps what Sri Lankans think is of no consequence to Harper. Perhaps it's what the voters back home think that matters.