When China and Russia vetoed Britain’s draft resolution to the UN Security Council on Thursday they continued with an increasingly confrontational stance which is ringing alarm bells with political analysts, myself included, and historians alike.
The draft resolution would have given the Syrian regime six weeks to withdraw heavy weapons from the cities and applied Chapter VII of the UN Charter to the Syrian crisis, which might later allow for military intervention.
The veto confirms Russian and Chinese support for Bashar al-Assad, despite the horrors of the past months, and their blind faith in his ability to stay in power and crush the armed revolution that seeks to overthrow him.
We do not know where this faith springs from or why Russia and China have thrice used their veto in less than a year, especially since the Free Syrian Army have begun to make inroads into the capital with bombings and attacks on key targets, such as the headquarters of the National Security Council, and have taken control of all the borders with Iraq and two with Turkey.
The Russians and Chinese must have different information to that broadcast by Arab television stations, or else they intend to escalate a confrontation with the ‘Friends of Syria’, led by the United States and including most Arab countries.
The assassination three days ago of at least three prominent generals, who were pillars of the system, inside the headquarters of the National Security Council, dealt a massive blow to the Assad regime. It is also possible that the regime itself carried out the murders because elements within Assad’s inner circle were plotting a coup in collaboration with the West. Saddam Hussein carried out just such an attack in 1979 when he liquidated some members of the Revolutionary Command Council, including those closest to him, when they began to plot his downfall. Whatever the truth, the loss of these key regime figures will inevitably weaken Assad’s position.
Russia and China’s double veto may lead to an aggravation of the crisis and the escalation of the proxy war which is intensifying day by day between the West and its Arab allies (who back the opposition), and Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah (who back the regime).
The announcement by the US that, since Kofi Annan’s plan has failed, they will now seek ways to end the Syrian crisis outside the framework of the UN is extremely serious. It suggests that the US already has a plan and that it is prepared to execute it without UN approval (which Russia and China would inevitably block). British foreign minister William Hague has also intimated that, following the failure of Thursday’s proposed resolution, he no longer considers the UN fit for purpose.
The American administration has not yet revealed its cards, but increasing fear-mongering about Assad deploying a huge inventory of chemical weapons, and that these weapons might fall into the hands of radical groups like al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, may shed some light.
Yesterday Jordan's King Abdullah II warned in an interview on CNN that Syria's chemical arsenal might fall into the hands of al-Qaeda, which has built up a strong presence in Syria in the course of the crisis, and claimed to have strong evidence to suggest this is a real possibility.
It is ironic that very similar statements were issued yesterday by Patrick Ventrell, a US State Department spokesman, and coincided with US press reports that America and Israel are considering a military operation to control Syria’s stock of chemical weapons, and if the security situation descends into chaos, to prevent Islamist militant groups seizing them.
Israel’s Minister for Defense, Ehud Barak, yesterday expressed his concerns that the Syrian regime might transfer its chemical weapons and heavy military equipment to Hezbollah in Lebanon and said Israel was deeply concerned by the creeping chaos in Syria.
With all this in mind, we would not be surprised if the near future produces a joint US-Israeli attack on Syria on the pretext of securing weapons of mass destruction in its possession, in a repeat scenario of the US invasion of Iraq.
Syria's chemical arsenal was built up mainly as a deterrent against any Israeli attack. It is perhaps useful to recall that the Arab nations have never used any chemical weapons against Israel, nor has Lebanese Hezbollah; in fact the opposite is true – Israel used incendiary white-phosphorus against unarmed civilians including children during the invasion of the Gaza Strip at the end of 2008.
Most Arabs stand side by side with the Syrian people and share their desire to free themselves from a dictatorial and repressive regime, as well as their demands for the most basic human rights, for dignity and democratic change. But if we now have to choose between this regime and a US-Israeli invasion of Syria we face a terrible dilemma. It is hard to believe that the Arab world, which strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, will gladly accept a repeat scenario in Syria especially with the unprecedented participation of Israeli.
The situation in Syria, and the whole region, is sliding into the abyss. The prospects for regional war, and – without exaggeration - the involvement of international superpowers, are increasingly likely. We are seized by fear and horror that events in Syria may open the doors to hell for the entire region and, potentially, the world.
