The United Nations Security Council is at an impasse regarding Syria but change is coming in any case, writes Graham Usher at the UN Things may be reaching tipping point in Syria, as the Baathist regime tries (and fails) to crush a revolt that has spread from the rural south to central cities like Homs and Hama to Jisr Al-Shughur, on the northwestern border with Turkey. But they are nowhere near tipping point on the Security Council: world powers there are struggling to agree a draft resolution condemning a state repression that, according to the UN, has killed 1,100 Syrians and imprisoned 10,000 since March. After weeks of sloth -- and stung by first reports of mutiny among Syria's 220,000-strong army in Jisr Al-Shughur -- Britain and France submitted a draft resolution on Syria on 8 June. It condemns the state's "systematic violation" of human rights, demands an end to the violence and calls on the regime to allow "unfettered" access to UN humanitarian and rights monitors. But unlike a council resolution on Libya passed three months ago, it rules out military action, carries no threat of Syria's referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity and wields no sanctions. Diplomats said the text's mildness was designed to garner the widest possible support on the council. "We believe that the world should not stand silent in the face of the outrages that are happening" in Syria, said Britain UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant. Permanent members Russia and China opposed the resolution, and may veto it. Damascus is Russia's closest Arab ally, bound by years of defence, intelligence and other relations. In the regime's current fight for survival it is clear with whom Moscow sides. A Security Council resolution "could be misunderstood by destructive forces in Syria who... declare they want regime change in Damascus," said Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin. China too prefers continuity to change. But Russia and China are not alone on the council. Brazil, South Africa and India also oppose the resolution. And this has less to do with ancient ties than recent experience. All three countries abstained on a Security Council resolution in March authorising military action in Libya. They did so out of deference to Arab League calls for a no-fly zone and assurances that the UN mandate would be restricted to protecting civilians, mostly in the besieged rebel city of Benghazi. Within hours official Arab support evaporated and NATO launched airstrikes armed with a thinly veiled remit of regime change. Brazil, South Africa and India do not want to be dealt the same hand twice. Syria is "very pivotal when you look at Middle East stability. I think the last thing we want to see or do is to contribute to exacerbating tensions in what we consider to be one of the tensest regions in the world," said Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota. There was "systematic concern" among certain countries on the council about the way the Libya resolution had been implemented, he said. And, unlike Libya, there had been no Arab call for UN involvement in Syria. That is true, and not surprising. The sole Arab country on the council is Lebanon, a state that in the words of one diplomat is "constitutionally" bound not to oppose Syria at the UN or anywhere else. From Iran to Saudi Arabia to even Israel the unspoken consensus is while few countries mind a Libya without Muammar Gaddafi, all fear that a Syria without the Baath could unleash sectarian civil wars of an Iraqi scale. The default regional position "will be to try to stick with what is in power right now for fear of what might come after," said Brian Katulis, an analyst with the Center for American Progress. But if the official response is silence, protests are being heard elsewhere. On 8 June Syria's still largely inchoate opposition sent a letter to the Security Council. It said there was no hope of any transition to democracy with the current regime in Damascus. It had also lodged evidence with the ICC chief prosecutor alleging that crimes against humanity have been committed in Syria since March. While calling on the world to act, it said it would oppose any resolution that is "modelled on the Libyan situation". Finally, it urged "the powerful democracies of Brazil, India and South Africa -- whose struggles for freedom against repression, colonialism and apartheid have inspired people across the Middle East -- to lead the way in supporting the region's peaceful struggle". Syria's rebels may find more traction with a powerful democracy closer to home. Of all the states rocked by the Arab spring, Turkey has fared best. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the first leader to tell Hosni Mubarak to slake his people's thirst for freedom or stand down. And having first tried dialogue with Gaddafi, Turkey bowed to the enormous weight of global opinion that the Libyan leader too would have to go. Erdogan urged dialogue on President Bashar Al-Assad, steeled by the growing détente between the two countries. But faced with 10,000 Syrian refugees seeking shelter on its soil -- and with calls for reform ignored -- Turkey has broken with what had been its closet Arab alley. The Turkish leader has denounced Syrian army actions against its own people as "savagery". He has said Al-Assad is "no longer possible to defend". And he has warned Istanbul would not tolerate "another Hama", a reference to Hafez Al-Assad's crushing of an uprising in the town in 1982 that left at least 10,000 Syrians dead. Finally, he has hinted Istanbul would support action taken by the Security Council against Syria, the first regional power to do so. (see p.8)
