When the Cold War ended, we were supposed to finally get this New World Order that made it possible to advance the cause of civilization across the globe, without the agendas of competing superpowers overriding consensus in the United Nations. (Either that, or some global conspiracy to undermine national sovereignty and do dirt to People Like You, if you are of a conspiracy orientation.)
But time and time again, two countries — a superpower wannabe and a superpower used-to-be — have repeatedly, usually perversely, stood in the way of any effort to crack down on bad actors from dictators who crush their own people to nutjobs who seek to go nuclear. Time and time again, the best friend of the Assads of the world turn out to be either China or Russia, or both of them. (True, France and Germany also demurred when we were gearing up to go after Saddam, but that was an instance in which reasonable people could disagree.)
Now, Hillary Clinton has called them on it:
Syria crisis: Clinton lambasts China and Russia as Annan urges unity
Hillary Clinton demands rivals ‘pay price’ for backing Assad as UN’s Kofi Annan warns Iran must play role in ending conflict
International divisions over Syria were laid bare today as Kofi Annan issued a blunt warning that world powers must end their “destructive competition” over the future of the Assad regime even as Hillary Clinton demanded that Russia and China “get off the sidelines” and support the Syrian people.
Clinton used a conference of the Friends of Syria group in Paris to demand that Russia and China join the three western members of the UN security council to pressure Assad over an escalating conflict that has left 15,000 dead and is inflaming the wider region…
Clinton called for “real and immediate consequences” for non-compliance with the peace plan, including sanctions against the regime, but with Russia and China boycotting the event, there was no chance of agreement on punitive action under Chapter 7 of the UN charter. “What can every nation and group represented here do?” Clinton asked. “I ask you to reach out to Russia and China, and to not only urge but demand that they get off the sidelines and begin to support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.
“I don’t think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all, nothing at all, for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime,” she said. “The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price. Because they are holding up progress, blockading it. That is no longer tolerable.”…
I like the “pay a price” part. I think if Hillary Clinton said I was going to pay a price if I didn’t straighten up and act right, I’d believe her.
Wouldn’t you?
You can see video of her address here.
Here’s hoping her tough talk will have a good effect. Just as her apology to Pakistan (which has really had touchy inferiority complex ever since we killed bin Laden in one of their suburbs) did earlier in the week. Sometimes you need to make nice, other times not so much.
Related Posts
I’m all for calling out China and Russia on this issue, but as generally admirable as I believe the Obama Administration’s record has been in foreign affairs, any American official has to realize that large swaths of the world’s population (and I don’t mean wild-eyed Islamic extremists, but rational citizens of liberal democracies everywhere) would feel compelled to point out that historically since WWII, the US could also have been said on numerous occasions, “to…perversely, [stand] in the way of any effort to crack down on bad actors from dictators who crush their own people to nutjobs…” and that thousands, millions, worldwide, have perished or suffered at the hands of dictators whose “best friend” turned out to be the United States. Thanks in part to the end of the Cold War, I think this may be less true today than it once was. The more rigorous we continue to be in showing the world that we intend to live up to the highest standards to which we aspire, not just merely to be “not as bad” or not “morally equivalent” to less-free regimes, the more success we may have at moral persuasion in world affairs.
Give it up Brad, Hillary won’t be on the ticket (unless) —- ——- —-.
There is a lesson to be learned from Iraq. For years the US backed Iraq because they were our proxy in the war with Iran.
Later those same weapons were in the hands of the Iraqi Army when they stormed Kuwait.
Right now it may be in Iran and Syria’s interests to accept the political cover of that China and Russia provides. Iran especially has a desire to be the premier force in the region though and it will stop at nothing to get it.
The same crazy that you support today may be the thorn in your side later.
Talk is cheap. Let’s see what’s backing up the words. At least she’s making the right noises, though.
Tavis says, “For years the US backed Iraq because they were our proxy in the war with Iran.” Phillip makes similar points.
Exactly. The end of the Cold War, and then later 9/11, were to have freed us to some extent from such expediencies. The overriding struggle against the Soviets, and then the need to contain post-Shah Iran, dictated that we make alliances with dubious characters who were judged, under the circumstances, to be the lesser of evils. Or, even if they were just as bad, or in a narrow way worse, they were necessary in terms of meeting the overriding priority.
In particular, after 9/11, there was a glimmer in which it appeared that we would stop propping up the bad status quo in the Mideast, realizing how dangerous that anything-to-keep-the-oil-flowing approach was to us in the long run.
But even then, there were deals to be made with the devil. If our strategy was purely to end oppressive regimes that encourage Islamism and scapegoat Israel as ways of keeping their people under their thumbs, then we would have toppled the house of Saud as readily as Saddam. Unfortunately, the illiberal regime in Saudi Arabia was OUR illiberal regime, and one that we needed strategically in the region — while Saddam had given us every excuse one should need over the preceding 12 years to take him down.
And then there’s the matter of Pakistan. There’s a state of affairs that is intolerable, a place that still provides haven to our enemies, passively if not actively.
But… realpolitik is still a consideration, and we can’t see a way forward with Pakistan as our open adversary. So we do such things as apologize the way we did earlier this week. And we continue to give them aid. And even though we go ahead and invade their territory without warning to get bin Laden, revealing their weakness and vulnerability, we try to be understanding of the backlash. Because we see things being worse if we don’t, and we have other fish to fry.
As much as we might like things to be black and white, they never quite will be. But when we do have such a clear case of serial obstructionism as we see with Russia and China, it’s nice to have a moment of moral clarity in which we denounce it.
Brad, you summarize accurately the realpolitik considerations that have gone into many foreign policy decisions. But let’s look closely at phrases you used: You speak of “expediencies,” an “overriding struggle…dictated that we make alliances with dubious characters who were judged…to be the lesser of evils….necessary in terms of meeting the overriding priority….deals to be made with the devil…OUR illiberal regime, and one that we needed strategically in the region….As much as we might like things to be black and white, they never quite will be.”
We may all feel frustrated by China and Russia’s unwillingness to go along with our preferred course of action in Syria, but is it not possible that the leadership in these countries, particularly China, are making the same “realpolitik” considerations that you feel are legitimate considerations in US policy, only from THEIR perspective?
Look, I agree with you and with Sec’y Clinton’s statement on this issue. But even as we publicly deplore Russia and China’s stance, and work both in the foreground and the background to try to find some common ground, let’s also admit that we Americans have a persistent habit of granting ourselves moral ambiguity and wiggle-room in our dealings with the world that we don’t grant other nations. In other words, when we embrace “dubious characters” or “illiberal regimes,” it’s because things “never quite will be” black-and-white. When another major power like China embraces a despot or thug or even simply doesn’t sign off on an American foreign policy initiative, then it’s automatically “serial obstructionism.”
In other words, when we get cozy with tyrants, well “things are not black and white”, but when other powers get cozy with tyrants, it’s a case of great “moral clarity.”
(True, France and Germany also demurred when we were gearing up to go after Saddam, but that was an instance in which reasonable people could disagree.)
-Brad
Actually you have this exactly backwards. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the appropriate course of action to take against Syria. It’s not clear whether it would be a good idea to arm the rebels, invoke sanctions or perhaps use airpower against what appears to be a bloody crackdown. It’s possible this could be yet another example of first impressions not telling the whole story. Remember those stories about the Iraqis disconnecting incubators in Kuwait? Turned out not to be true. Perhaps the Russians and Chinese have a different perspective regarding their national interests. After all the US has certainly turned a blind eye toward atrocities when it served our national goals. We were certainly not raising too many objections to Saddam’s mass killings in the 1980s.
As for the 2003-2011 Iraq debacle. No reasonable person can still consider that a good idea.
So now I’m not a reasonable person. Well. This role is going to take some getting used to…
And Bud, you’re missing the point on Syria. I’m talking about actual consensus to which those two countries are exceptions…
Brad, how many “consensus” resolutions have been passed condeming Israel for west bank settlements that the US vetoed in the UN? Were those instances of the US being unreasonable?
Yep, sometimes the “consensus” is wrong.
What I’m asserting here is that this is not such a case. Nor are the other cases in which Russia and China obstruct.
Please argue with that, since that’s what I’m asserting. Let’s not go down a “moral equivalence” rathole. If you have an argument in Russia’s and China’s defense in the instance at hand, let’s hear it.
Oh, and by the way — Hillary’s tough stance may have had a good effect. Or maybe it’s coincidence. In any case, Russia is backing off from supplying weapons to Assad…
I’m not defending the Russians but perhaps this is more complicated that simply playing the “atrocity” card. Perhaps the rebels are doing terrible things also. Sometimes we don’t know until after the shooting stops. I don’t believe the Russians should be arming the Assad regime but I don’t think we should be arming the rebels. With no arms there will be fewer atrocities. And afterall isn’t that the only thing that really matters?
I’m talking about actual consensus to which those two countries are exceptions…
Yep, sometimes the “consensus” is wrong.
-Brad
So we should respect consensus except when it is wrong?
We should always respect consensus, even when we must respectfully disagree.
@ Brad – why should we respect consensus if we disagree? Sometimes the consensus is wrong. I am reminded of a story from a statistics class – Nobody had ever seen the Emporer of China and for some reason they needed to figure out how long his nose was, so they took a poll where everyone put in their guess as to emporer’s nose length and then used the average of the guesses. Anyways, the consensus measurement they came up with was not likely to be correct – since it was just made up of uninformed guesses.
The emporer’s nose question can serve as a great problem solving exercise. If no one had ever seen the emperor then they could make an informed decision on whatever information they do have. How tall is he? Have anyone ever seen his siblings or parents, cousins or anyone else who might provide a clue? How old is he? What ring size does he have? Using whatever information is available research can be done and something a bit better than a pure guess can be derived. Perhaps some students have more information than others. Perhaps there is literature about average nose length in China or for some sub-group. If absolutely nothing is known, not even his race then the best you can do is take the average nose length for the average human male (assuming gender at least is known) and that serves as your best estimate and no guesswork “consensus” is needed.
And that’s how we have to treat the situation in Syria. We glean whatever information we can and go from there based on facts. This business of “intuition” and “gut instinct” is the type of policy making that gets us into trouble. Let’s try to stay away from that.