Whatever the fate of the Arab League peace plan for Syria, it's going to be NATO versus the BRICS on the Security Council, says Graham Usher at the United Nations Not so long ago disputes between the 22-member states of the Arab League would have been met with a shrug of the shoulders. Not any more. Syria's announcement on 4 December that it would respond "positively" to an Arab peace plan to end eight months of violence was registered not only in the region but also in New York -- where the Syrian crisis has divided the UN Security Council like no other issue. For the so-called BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- all currently on the Security Council) Damascus's response offers perhaps the last chance to return the crisis to the Arab fold and away from the growing threat of another Libya-like Western intervention. For NATO countries on the council (the United States, Britain, France and Germany), Syria's apparent acceptance is probably a setback: all four have adopted national policies of regime change in Syria. They view the end of Bashar Al-Assad as a victory for Western, including Israeli, interests and a defeat for Iran. Any serious implementation of the Arab League plan would put those policies on hold and relieve a Western-led campaign of sanctions that has left the Syrian regime tottering if not toppling. The NATO countries' hunch, however, is that Damascus is not serious. The Arab League plan requires the Syrian government to withdraw its military from towns and villages, release prisoners and have both actions overseen by Arab League observers. Most analysts think that the chances of that happening are zero. Given the depth of the revolt in Syria, it would mean the regime ceding permanent control of cities like Homs and Deraa to an armed and entrenched opposition. The safer bet is Damascus is playing for time: on 5 December government spokesmen said Syria's reinstatement to the League and the cancellation of Arab sanctions must immediately follow the signing of any peace agreement. Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Al-Arabi said that was impossible. Still, the NATO countries will accept an agreement if the Arab League does. "We cannot get ahead of the Arabs," said one Western diplomat. This is because the only way any resolution with teeth could be passed on the Security Council is if it comes with a large Arab League mandate. And the conviction of the NATO states is that the League's unprecedented decision to suspend and impose sanctions on Syria has transformed not only the regional but global perception of the crisis. "It's a game-changer," said the diplomat. It certainly changed dynamics at the UN. In October Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution for considering sanctions against their closest Arab ally. Since then the Human Rights Committee at the General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva has passed -- by massive majorities -- resolutions that condemn Syria for its "gross and systematic violations" of human rights. The first resolution was drafted by European states with the Arab League, and seconded by Saudi Arabia. The second had the support of all five Arab League members on the HRC: Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Western diplomats believe similar levels of Arab League support for a Security Council resolution against Syria would erode Russian and Chinese opposition, or at least break up their coalition with Brazil, India and South Africa. "I can't believe Russia will go on a collision course over Syria with a united Arab world," said the diplomat. "I'm hopeful we can have a fresh look at Security Council action". It may be more hope than experience. In recent weeks Russia and its allies have made any outside intervention in Syria -- "humanitarian" or otherwise -- a red line that won't be breached, at least at the Security Council. Even the adoption of Arab League-like economic sanctions may be beyond the pale. Russia and China were virtually alone in opposing the HRC resolution in Geneva. The "the positions in the document, which include the veiled hint of the possibility of foreign military intervention under the pretext of defending the Syrian people, are unacceptable," said the Russian Foreign Ministry. A meeting of BRICS deputy foreign ministers in Moscow on 24 November also ruled out outside intervention. Rather, "the only acceptable way to resolve the internal crisis in Syria is through urgent peaceful negotiations with the participation of all parties as provided by the Arab League initiative taking into account the legitimate aspirations of all Syrians. Any external interference in Syria's affairs, not in accordance with the UN Charter, should be excluded," read the BRICS communiqu��. Finally, on 2 December Russia's UN Ambassador Vitay Churkin told reporters in New York that while the Arab League initiative offered a "unique opportunity" to "pacify" the Syrian crisis, its imposition of economic sanctions was "counterproductive". "We must be mindful of the economic and social stresses [sanctions] could have, especially on [other] Arab countries," said Churkin. It seems fairly clear. Russia will oppose any new push for international sanctions or intervention in Syria at the UN as a threat to its ally, regional stability and itself. And it will cast the move as a NATO-inspired policy for regime change. That fight will be with the US and European states on the Security Council. But it will resonate on the struggle in Syria and may rend the apparent unity of the Arab League: some of whose members support the regime changers and some of whom, just as clearly, do not.
