Fear of a re-run of Libya was one reason Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution condemning Syria. There were others, writes Graham Usher at the UN On 4 October Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian regime's oppression of anti-government protesters. It was first council veto since February, when the United States blocked a resolution condemning Israel's settlement policies. Here too Moscow and Beijing moved to protect their last remaining ally in a transformative Middle East. But whereas the US acted alone, Russia and China were joined by Brazil, South Africa and India, the so-called Middle Powers on the council, who abstained on the resolution. Lebanon did too, though for reasons of geopolitics rather than politics. A long two months in the making, the resolution had been drafted by the council's European Union countries (Britain, France, Germany and Portugal), and backed by Washington. It had undergone at least three revisions in a vain attempt to win Russia's blessing. The resolution was anodyne. It condemned the Syrian regime's use of force against civilian demonstrators and called for its end. The only trace of possible action was a pledge that the council would "consider its options" after 30 days. Even then any sanctions would be diplomatic and/or economic rather than military. Western diplomats insisted this was to be no re-run of Libya, in which UN sanctions against the Gaddafi regime rapidly morphed into an armed NATO-led assault to topple it. Russia wasn't biting. There was "regime change" written all over this resolution, said Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin. He invoked the Libyan scenario, or how the council's "demand for a rapid ceasefire [in Libya] turned into a fully-fledged civil war". He also said neither he nor his Chinese colleague were willing to "cast aside old allies in a single breath", a tart riposte to France and Britain which, as recently as last year, were trading arms with Gaddafi. Moscow and Beijing had been genuinely angered that a council resolution intended to protect civilians in Libya became used by Western powers to pursue undisguised policies of regime change. But their protests against the Syrian resolution were disingenuous. Russia in particular had more material reasons for standing by its sole Arab ally, including $3 billion worth of arms contracts and a naval base in Tartus, the only one outside the former Soviet Union. Still, their opposition did expose fundamental differences with the West over the significance of the popular uprisings in the Arab world. For Russia and China, Bashar Al-Assad's regime -- for all its callousness -- remains a secular bulwark in a region that appears to become over-run by Islamist or neo-Islamist forces. Syria is also deemed key to regional stability. A collapse there could not only herald a sectarian civil war (they fear) but a confrontation that could suck in Turkey, Israel and Iran into Lebanon-like cockpit. For all these reasons Russia and China are "betting on [the regime of Bashar] Al-Assad to resist rather than the opposition to win", Russian analyst Aleksandr Shumilin, told the BBC. It is a gamble currently shared by Brazil, South Africa and India. They too feared even a whiff of Security Council sanctions could mark a first step on the road to foreign intervention. Moreover, by falling in behind Russia and China they drew a demarche between the UN and the so-called Arab Spring. With the Syria resolution, the three countries showed they will resist the UN being used to authorise regime changes deemed friendly to the West. And second -- like Russia and China -- they are deeply suspicious of the Western powers co-opting Arab protest movements to further their own regional agendas. For them Libya was an exception that must not become the rule. This doesn't mean they are everywhere backers of the status quo. Together with Russia, China and Lebanon they add up to the six countries on the council that support the Palestinian Authority's bid to become a full member UN state. It is the EU and US that are opposed. The UN is now broken when it comes to Syria, despite pleas from US ambassador Susan Rice that "we will not rest until this council rises to meet its responsibilities." In fact, most forces are looking elsewhere. Syrian opposition groups, human rights organisations, even states, are no longer appealing to the world body for deliverance a la Libya; but rather to popular resistance in Syria, international sanctions from abroad and increasingly robust postures by regional states like Turkey. Ankara has already put an arms embargo on the Syrian regime and will soon impose other sanctions. It has engaged in very conspicuous military manoeuvres on the Turkish-Syrian border. And it has provided refuge to 7,000 Syrian refugees, including high ranking military defectors. Most significantly it has hosted the Syrian National Council (SNC), a rebel, national-popular movement committed to the downfall of the Al-Assad regime that includes Muslim Brothers, secular democrats and Kurdish nationalists. SNC leaders were predictably scathing about the UN's failure to defend a revolt that has already claimed nearly 3,000 lives. One warned that those countries "supporting Bashar Al-Assad's militarist and fascist project will not encourage the Syrian people to stick to a peaceful revolution". If the road ahead is indeed not "peaceful" for the Syrian people, they should draw one lesson from last week's Security Council vetoes: unlike Libya -- and with the possible exception of Turkey -- it's a road they will have to walk alone.
