The latest UN Security Council draft resolution on Syria was vetoed by China and Russia Saturday, while the other 13 members of the council voted in favor. The veto sparked discontent from some Western and Arab diplomats. Why did China vote against the resolution? Does it signal closer diplomatic ties to Russia? Global Times (GT) reporter Chen Chenchen talked to Gao Zugui (Gao), a researcher with the Institute for International Strategic Studies at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, on these issues.
GT: What motivated China to use its veto?
Gao: Frankly, I'm not surprised at all by the veto. The latest UN resolution still backs an Arab League proposal that could have hastened the stepping down of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Arab League proposal urges Assad to hand over power to a deputy president and set up a new unity government, which is similar to what happened in Yemen a couple of months ago. The latest UN resolution, if passed, could have foreshadowed Western intervention in Syria in the future.
We saw what happened to Libya last year. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed in March, 2011, in favor of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi. But the "no-fly zone" later proved a euphemism for war.
A UN resolution is usually a collection of the standpoints of various parties involved. However, the US-led West can interpret the text based on their own needs.
When passing Resolution 1973, the West claimed it was protecting Libyan civilians and stopping humanitarian disasters. However, even greater humanitarian disasters were caused later. After the West got what it needed, it left behind even greater chaos in Libya. This is a big lesson for us to learn.
GT: Some Western observers hold that China and Russia have braved Arab and Western fury by vetoing the resolution. Do you think the veto may bring China diplomatic risks with the Arab League?
Gao: The Arab League finds itself in a dilemma as well. On the one hand, it hopes to solve the Syrian crisis and begin a new peace process. But on the other hand, they also don't want to see external intervention. The problem is that, once the so-called transition process starts, things will run out of the Arab League's control.
It seems that China, together with Russia, are in conflict with the Arab League by vetoing the resolution. However, they have something in common: All of them support dialogue between different factions within Syria, and they agree on the Arab League's important role in solving the ongoing chaos.
The Arab League's views converge partly with the West, and partly with China and Russia. However, the former overlapping part has been amplified by the West. The West has succeeded in making its own position a dominant one by taking advantage of the Arab League's standpoint.
GT: Some have speculated that Moscow and Beijing may form closer ties due to their voting alliance in the UN Security Council. What's your view?
Gao: I don't think so. The strategic partnership between China and Russia has grown increasingly deep and mature. The latest case is their voting over the Syria resolution Saturday. And there are many other cases of such strategic coordination. However, this has nothing to do with building a strategic alliance.
The two powers' strategic coordination is based on the specific issues, and calculations about their common interests. The two are not always going to adopt the same stance.
Decision-makers in Russia adopt a very pragmatic and flexible manner when dealing with diplomatic affairs. China, a latecomer to the Middle East, has to be cautious and humble in declaring where it stands.
In the future, even if China and Russia vote the same way, their calculations will still be different from each other.
GT: Some say that China won't have much impact on regional dynamics in the Middle East. Do you agree?
Gao: Fundamentally, Syria's future political developments depend on whether its domestic factions can find a way to break the current impasse. The current violence, perpetrated by both the government and anti-Assad forces, is leading to climbing death tolls. On the basis of domestic negotiations, the Arab League can play a significant role to restore peace.
Today even the US, UK and France seek to exert their clout through supporting the Arab League. The role of newcomers like China shouldn't be overestimated.
But China does have its own independent diplomatic principles. We've seen repeatedly that principles in the UN Charter have been ignored and violated by the West, which wants to topple regimes based on its own preferences. At the moment, there are also pro-Assad forces in Syria, should their appeals be simply neglected?
Apparently, the West is unhappy with China's veto. They hope to see emerging countries stand in their line, and see their standard as the only axis. But the world has already become increasingly diversified.
Along with its domestic development and its expanding interests in regions across the world, China will be urged to give a clear stance on more and more difficult issues. China has to stay cool-headed. The world is not the one that once saw clear boundaries among different blocs. Take the Middle East. The interweaving interests among different powers in this region are rather complicated, and are changing over time. Traditional players like the US, UK, France and Russia have had their deployments and calculations in this region for years. Now new players like India are starting to get involved in this area. China has to navigate its policies through tackling various specific, difficult problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment