The Syria Veto
By Chandra Muzaffar
06 October, 2011
Countercurrents.org
China and Russia did the right thing in casting their veto against the draft resolution on Syria sponsored by a number of Western states in the UN Security Council.
The resolution was the thin end of the wedge which would have eventually led to military intervention by NATO aimed at regime change in Syria. It would have been a repeat of sorts of the recent Libyan episode. At this juncture, we should remind ourselves that in the last 10 years Western military intervention has brought down regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The China-Russia veto was in that sense a rejection of regime change with the connivance and collusion of foreign elements. It reaffirmed the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny, without outside interference.
Why are the centres of power in the West so determined to get rid of Bashar Assad in Damascus? The Bashar government has given a great deal of support to the Palestinian cause. Syria has been a sanctuary for Hamas leaders. The government has forged a strong bond with Hizbollah, the leading political and military actor in Lebanon which has successfully defended the sovereignty of the nation against Israeli invasion and assault on more than one occasion. Most of all, Bashar is a staunch ally of Iran and it is Iran that is the only real challenge to both Israeli and US power in West Asia. All these reasons explain why Israel and the US, backed by Europe, are seeking to eliminate a vital intra-regional link which stands in the way of their hegemonic agenda.
For Israel and the US, ousting Bashar has become even more imperative for two additional reasons. The Arab uprising which is empowering the masses is giving the jitters to the Israeli elite who fear that it may no longer be able to perpetuate Israeli interests through unpopular treaties with feudal monarchs and autocratic presidents. At the same time, the US is also losing its grip over the region partly because of its ignominious withdrawal from Iraq and its imminent defeat in Afghanistan, compounded by its own economic decline. Both countries are therefore going all out to createan environment in West Asia which would protect and enhance Israel’s position before the political landscape changes drastically to their disadvantage.
It is because regime change in Damascus on behalf of Israel is the real motive that the West’s Security Council resolution was so one-sided. It focussed on the violence committed by the Bashar regime but made no mention of the violence perpetrated by some of his adversaries. That Bashar is faced with a well organised armed insurgency in certain cities is an irrefutable fact. It is an insurgency that is supported by funds and arms supplied by groups and individuals in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Turkey. The insurgency has the explicit endorsement of the centres of power in the West. It is a measure of the strength of the insurgency that more than a third of the people killed in the Syrian uprising since March 2011 are security personnel.
It is against this backdrop that one should view the tragic murder of the 21 year-old son of the Grand Mufti of Syria. The murder was intended as a message to the father, Dr. Sheikh BadruddinHasnoun.The protesters, especially some of the Islamic insurgents, were incensed by his efforts to end the violence and to promote dialogue. The Grand Mufti, a passionate advocate of inter-community dialogue and harmony, has been traversing the land urging his people to seek peaceful change and not to allow Syria to be a victim of the conspiracy being hatched by various forces. According to reports, this had provoked some religious personalities in Saudi Arabia to issue a fatwa( a legal opinion) calling for the assassination of Dr.Badruddin.
While bigoted, extremist elements inclined towards violence are part of the movement to overthrow Bashar, it is undeniably true that there are also thousands of peaceful protesters who genuinely desire democratic reforms. Their demands for a participatory political system that respects non-violent dissent and allows for peaceful change should be heeded by the Bashar government.
President Bashar Assad has promised to implement the changes that the people want. He has initiated a National Dialogue for this purpose. He has also announced a slew of new laws covering citizenship, the media, political parties, elections and the legislature which hopefully will give birth to a just, democratic Syria. A fact-finding mission from Russia and a delegation comprising representatives from some of the other countries on the Security Council have studied the situation in Syria and have concluded that some changes have been implemented.
Much more needs to be done. The armed insurgency may impede the pace of reform but Bashar should press ahead regardless. His security forces should also exercise maximum restraint when confronted by peaceful protesters.
Russia and China and four other Security Council members who abstained from supporting or opposing the resolution, namely, Lebanon, India, Brazil and South Africa, now have some leverage over Bashar and should use it to persuade him to expedite reforms and to cease shooting peaceful protesters immediately.
Taking a cue from the Syria resolution, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in particular should become more assertive and organised in global politics. They will not only be able to check Western hegemony but also set the stage for a more equitable and balanced international order.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of Global Studies at UIniversitiSains Malaysia.
Malaysia.
6 October 2011.
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
